I enjoyed the Harvey reading because it explains and asserts why leadership is fundamental. I especially was interested in how he presented the theories that supports leadership. In the leadership cycle, I was most absorbed by the question: “Where are we going?” When examining leadership it is important to understand this question. It is important to be conscious in figuring out the steps needed to achieve your goals because then it is just going to be blanketed statements with no actions on how to bring about change. I think that this is the first and crucial step that is necessary in becoming an effective leader.

Reading Bezio’s piece was so intriguing, as I haven’t reflected on the relationship between leaders in fiction and in real life for a while now. Going through all my leadership classes this semester and 102 last semester, I was deeply grounded into the reality of leadership, and maybe some sprinkles of normative stuff. However, when the reading went over the historical context of Shakespeare’s Pericles with Brexit, I was brought back to my LDST 101 brain over a year ago.

The fictional leader that I most remember was from All the King’s Men, Willie Stark. He added color and complexity to the concept of populism, whether one should represent the people or work hard to be of a superior morality to the masses. We also explored Machiavelli, Utopia by Thomas More, Major Barbara, and so on. While it was such a riveting class, I definitely see how over time, some of what I learned will naturally diffuse, as I now have to deal with the complexities of modern leaders.

But this reading reminded me that a healthy balance can be met. You can appreciate literary leaders and their traits, but it must be kept within the historical place of their literary world, and we as people have to recognize how our modern issues and conflicts might not correlate in a super meaningful way to these literary works.

“To lead is to ask” (Harvey 99). Harvey’s approach to identifying and reframing questions was a very clear way to assess the leader-follower relationship and the important questions leaders must ask. He was able to pull in many other published ideas about leadership and identify the questions (and their order) that groups and their leaders must confront. I loved reading this chapter and was able to see the identified questions and their sequence in the current context of COVID-19.  I wanted to point out the one question that I think is most absent in the current context of the national leader-follower relationship between Trump, and the general government, and the public.

The final question: Do we understand? I think often, in smaller groups, it is not asked because the prior questions assist in identifying goals, the path to get there, and group identity; and it is assumed that people understand. I know for myself, I have been a follower where I feel like this question was not answered, and it leads me to not feel invested because ideas became so complex and were never explained in a simple way to reinforce my personal involvement. Harvey identifies the main problem as that leaders have more at stake than followers, as they are often the driving force. Not only that, but he brings up the fact that followers are rooted in the present, while leaders attempt to live in the future. Asking this question can merge both the leader and followers together to re-enforce understanding and “team” identity. A strong example of this communication, (simplification without becoming condescending) was Roosevelt and his use of the radio. His “fireside chats” allowed him to create a personal connection with the American public and simplify and communicate important topics. Such as the bank panic of March 1933, where he was able to calmly, clearly, and simply explain to the American public the complex information and current state and express a personal tone and encourage the public to take action.

COVID WARNING

I think with this current state a lot of the questions have been answered. We have been identified in this current context as not only a nation but a global community. The leader and follower dynamic is national, there are constant updates on the news about what’s happening, we know how we are doing, we are working towards more testing, we are trying to go into the direction of a vaccine, we know why we should care. But really, that final question of “do we understand?” is missing. The news today is plagued by rising numbers of those taken by COVID-19, insensitively lumping lost lives into statistics. I think that the urgency of quarantine must be approached the same way Roosevelt approached the bank crisis. Our current way of communication creates national panic driven by fear and uncertainty, fueling the over-buying, hoarding, national stress, and a lost sense of “togetherness.” Asking the question “do we understand?” would look like an explanation of why quarantine is important (because I know there are a lot of people, especially my generation, that aren’t following the guidelines), and re-enforcing the understanding that this is a scary time, but each American can do their part to assist in a faster solution and slower spread.

I liked the way Harvey started this reading, by pinpointing why leadership is so complex. In general, I liked this reading because it defends why leadership studies are legitimate and important. Out of his seven questions, I found “Who are we?” to be the most surprising and interesting. It is a simple question, but one that may often go unanswered. Context is important, and without it, we cannot be sure that we are doing the correct thing for a situation. Naming this context and group identities is extremely important. This question may seem to divide people in some cases, but for effective leadership, it is meant to unite people. The end of the questions “Do we understand” is also something that I think is easily glossed over. This is the part that a group evaluates that progress has actually occurred. This reminds me of the phrase “history repeats itself.” Without reflection, we are bound to make the same mistakes over and over. Studying the effects of leaders will show which attributes are beneficial to which situations.

I had never questioned the analysis of fictional characters before reading Bezio’s paper. As I mentioned earlier, we have learned before that context matters, and it makes sense that this would change the evaluation of leaders in Shakespeare’s plays. As stated early on in the reading, certain comparisons do not properly encompass important difference. However, considering context, using fictional leaders can be helpful examples. They are certainly me steadfast and consistent than real life examples. A few comparisons from Pericles to Brexit stood out to me. First, Shakespeare’s reminder to the audience that power does not come from God, but from the people. England’s transition from a pure monarchy to a parliamentary system exemplifies this feeling among the people who voted for Brexit, and thus demonstrated power of the masses. Additionally, Bezio made the parting remark to “advocate for what is just even in the face of storms and corruption.” This idea demonstrated in Shakespeare is a very powerful example that leaders would do well to emulate.

Our first reading organized every theory of leadership that I have studied at Jepson into an entirely new framework. I enjoyed reading about a sort of new definition of leadership and how other theories support/relate to it. In this case, I’m referring to the new definition as “leaders confront and solve problems associated with group survival and well-being”. Out of the seven questions in the leadership cycle (I’m purposely saying cycle instead of model), I was most intrigued by number two. Asking “Where are we?” is a process we often subconsciously perform to gain an understanding of group environment and situation, but I never analyzed its purpose. The way I interpreted it was asking this question helps “set the stage” in explaining past actions and understanding the context for future actions. I also think the use of Flight 93 as an example was a genius way of explaining the question beyond the literal; the question can also be framed as, “What is our current situation?”/ “What can we do where we are at?” in reference to the space. Another part of the article I appreciated was how Harvey questioned his own model with a series of questions to explain his thought process. The question that stood out to me in this section concerned re-framing the questions using first-person singular. While leadership is a group process, we acknowledge that each participant is an individual. When the term individual is thrown around, I tend to focus on the followers as individuals because they are often discredited, ignored or out shined when analyzing leadership. However, this new question forced me to realize that, as individuals, leaders can undergo this cycle on a personal level, without letting it affect their followers. It honestly made the leadership position look lonely.

Two paragraphs into our second reading, the concept of cultural relativism was brought up again (I made this reference in my last post). Practicing cultural relativism means examining texts, theories, works of culture through the lens of the era it was made in. Through understanding what people of that time period thought, believed, and the laws which they were governed by can provide deep insight into pieces of history we analyze today. For example, one cannot understand the successful timing of the civil rights movement without first understanding how Jim Crow laws made the U.S. look to small, minority countries being “wooed” by the Soviet Union. I have no background in Shakespeare or Elizabethan history (not even sure if that’s the right term), but I found the connection between Shakespeare’s Pericles and James’ reputation as king quite interesting. I would not have considered the strong correlation of the plot/characters to the political climate and debate over Union without this article. Through exemplification of English customs and royal etiquette, Shakespeare directly targets James as a ruler. The theme of opposing and warning against tyranny is seen throughout the play but would not be as significant without understanding James’ carelessness with finances, disregard for parliament and actions of appointing Scotsman onto his privy council. Once we analyze the play alongside its historical context, it becomes clear how the two influence each other and why they remain significant in modern times.

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 found the passage on the Where and the How particularly interesting, especially in an election year. Leaders running for office must decide how they will balance appealing to the masses while clearly articulating their platform and plans. The example given, contrasting Obama’s “soaring rhetoric” with a heavy focus on ‘we’ and Clinton’s more pragmatic but less inspiring realism about the difficulty of leading the country. Obama, of course, won that campaign, and it could even be argued that Trump beat Clinton using the same focus on what he said, not the how of accomplishing his goals.

Looking at this election through that lens, candidates who were very plan oriented, such as Elizabeth Warren, had strong bases but failed to expand their appeal. Pete Buttigieg, who famously adopted much of Obama’s language, managed to rise in the polls. The two candidates with the most support, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, had clashing styles. Bernie Sanders used people-oriented policy to explain how he would get support for his plans, while Joe Biden touted his experience as Obama’s VP. In this, they combined both the rhetoric with the ‘how’ to gain mass appeal.

In Harvey’s article, I liked how he said, “it is not enough for a leader to do or be one thing: honest, or charismatic, or “genuine”… Leadership is the executive function of the group, and as such it is comprised of distinct tasks”. Going off of our previous discussions, it is important to remember that leadership is not charisma. Rather, it is a collection of individuals working towards a common goal. One thing we talked about in my 102 class last semester is how leadership is the ever-changing relationship between leaders and followers.

I also think that Harvey’s reading brought up an interesting point about the Leadership Cycle. He comments that, “the work of leadership is never done”. He presented the seven questions, but then emphasizes that there is no definitive end to these questions, but it evolves over time and is shaped based on the members of the group and their needs. There is no one concrete answer for these types of things, especially when we live in such a fast paced environment where issues and discussions are constantly shifting and changing. Being able to adapt to different environments and communicate to achieve a common goal is so important in the study and execution of effective leadership. It emphasizes that, in such a rapidly changing world, we can’t have effective leadership without communication between all the different groups that make it work cohesively.

A part of the Harvey reading that stuck with me was the comparison of “Where are we going?” and “How will we get there?”. For me they’ve always been part of the same question, because I’m just a person who worries about the details of everything for no reason. But I see now that putting in the effort to also answer “How will we get there?” shows an additional level of responsibility that one would want in a leader. Applying these two questions to political issues, environmental issues, etc. is important, because at the end of the day you’re going to want to support the person that can actually follow through in what they’re promising.

The second to last paragraph in Bezio’s article stuck out to me because of its discussion on identity. I hadn’t considered the factors that she mentioned, like more access to the internet, international travel, and general exposure to cultural diversity, that would separate the generations under and over 45. Even living on a college campus for a long time (except not right now, sad times) makes me forget that some opinions and views that my peers and I don’t even look twice at might not be so accepted by my parents. My parents aren’t nationalists by any means, but sometimes I do need to take a step back and remember that they weren’t exposed to the same things I was growing up.

I think the Bezio article brings up an important point when evaluating history and historical leaders. It can be easy to glorify the accomplishments of past “Great Man” leaders without considering the context they lead within. As we talked about in our discussion group on Monday, many people are quick to praise Thomas Jefferson and label him as an American hero for the work he did and structures he put in place at the formation of our country. However, that does not include the fact that he was an abusive slave owner who built his accomplishments upon the forced labor of other human beings. Understanding that context is hugely important when looking at Jefferson. Knowing those facts, it is clear that that is not the type of person that we should praise as a nation and should not regard him as one of the “Great Man” leaders of American history. 

Harvey’s chapter also echoes the importance of understanding “Where are we?” when studying leadership. The context that a leader is trying to lead within is going to enormously change what is appropriate for that circumstance. Being the CEO of an international company is going to require hugely different leadership strategies than a teacher leading a classroom. Even the age group that a teacher is teaching will have an impact on what methods are appropriate and successful for leadership within that context. Like Bezio, Harvey emphasizes learning about our position in the world as well as other questions directed at learning about ourselves before we can look to the future and envision our goals. Understanding how leaders – whether that is a historical figure, contemporary, or ourselves – fit into the world around them is the first step in learning about them and becoming more effective.