Both of the readings focused on redefining leadership, or citizenship to better engage our current society. In McFarland’s piece on redefining leadership, there were several shifts in how leaders should be. It moved away from the traditional top-down style and more towards a collaborative, holistic, humanistic style of leadership that is prepared for constant change. This reading reminded me of the women’s leadership reading and the followership piece, because it called for recognition of leadership within the traditional follower group as well as calling for a more interactive leadership style.
I think the most important part of Williamson’s piece was when he stated that the foundation for democratic citizenry is “shared commitment to one another, our shared commitment to the common project of building an inclusive democratic society, and a shared willingness to take the concrete steps needed to bring that ideal into reality” (Williamson 20). This was similar to McFarland’s call for leadership, because Williamson wants us to all engage collaboratively and interactively together to make our democracy thrive. Hopefully, if leadership does shift towards the newer definition, Williamson’s vision of a more democratic United States will come to life.
I definitely agree with you on the direction that leadership needs to go in. A more collaborative, involved group of citizens produces stronger future leaders who know how to work with others. The current top-down style of leadership is surely ineffective, as hierarchies are created which have proven to cause problems.
I agree with the fact that leadership should be more collaborative. It makes a better leader and follower relationship, and decreases the possibility of groupthink, but how would that affect leadership? In other words, would sharing of power erase the lines between the leader and follower in, for example, a workplace setting? And would that intersectionality cause issues in possession of power when it comes to directing and giving orders?
I definitely agree that we need to work collaboratively to achieve Williamson’s goals, which means moving away from the “top down” model of leadership and towards a more equal partnership between leaders and followers. This reading reminded me of the “Citizen Leader” reading from earlier in the semester, which basically argued that relying on those in official leadership positions is not enough.
Interestingly enough, I also thought about the article “Ways Women Lead” when reading about a collaborative, holistic, humanistic style of leadership. If more leaders can incorporate interactions with their followers, they will more likely be successful. Therefore, it is crucial for corporations to stay away from the “top down” model of leadership, and instead take in different perspectives in order to achieve more progress.
I also thought it was interesting when he talked about omnidirectional leadership because when we usually think of the way leadership works, its all about the guy at the top of the chain directing those below him. I like how this leadership model gets “redefined” and how it plays out in society.
In reading McFarland’s article I also thought immediately of transformational leadership as the style he was referring to. In the past, society has functioned with many different leadership styles but as he stated there is a distinction between leading and managing and constant teaching and learning is essential to leadership.