Author: Eyga Williamson

I found this article extremely interesting. One of the most outstanding quotes within this passage to me is earlier along when Giles claims that the multiple

“components of this dual identity are salient, and each one is triggered on different occasions as being more central to who that person is at that moment”

This quote is so intriguing because it is not something that is not always done consciously. Usually in different circumstances that cause for different assets of one’s personality to come out, the switch happens naturally and without thought. The way in which all these aspects work together to create an identity is especially interesting when considering how each aspect’s individuality surfaces depending on the situation. 

I also thought that Gile’s social identity theory was also interesting. The fact that people choose to demonstrate pride for their ingroup by emphasizing its characteristics becomes a way to consider the reason behind senseless rivalries. To me, it seems that the more differences are emphasized the more tension arises due to a desire to be the dominant ingroup. Even though the initial intent may have been to merely display pride, I see how this intent can be easily misconstrued. 

 

4 Comments

Schein’s article was very interesting and encouraging for me. In the beginning I was a little concerned because of the way she associated certain effective leadership characteristics dependent with certain genders, but the way that Schein disassembled these association was amazing to me. In order to actually assess an issue, in this case sexism, it becomes important to ask the right questions and that’s what she did in this article. 

Instead of focusing on making women have to choose between family and career path, she takes a very extraordinary stance and asks to effectively infuse the two. I value this because it does not completely take away from the nurturing aspect of females, which would be problematic because it is often very true, but instead disrupts the idea that a mother can not also be someone devoted and successful in their field of work. In doing this I believe that she is able to diminish the preconceived “feminine” and “masculine” qualities and successfully offers a solution to the issue of gender discrimination in the work place. By integrating these unnecessarily separate yet crucial aspect of life, work and family, there is less of a chance for these stereotypes to persist, as they resolve the issue of restricting women to the household.

The questions she raises are valuable and answering them would create the opportunity to at least address the issue. 

 

2 Comments

Kelley’s article was extremely interesting to me. Throughout his piece he introduces this frequently overlooked idea of follower agency. Usually in assessing the success of the group, much of it is chalked up to the leadership ability of the group’s leader, or how well they delegated power–little attention ever paid to the people that actually make it happen. 

Kelly’s distinguishment between all the types of followers, as opposed to categorizing them all as merely followers, suggests that closer attention to be paid to the followers, as many of them are not just “yes men”, and should not be objectified. 

I also think it is interesting how he discusses what makes a follower effective, and how in that discussion he mentions the bank that thrived without leaders and relied solely on follower responsibility. This makes me question the creation and existence of leadership as a whole. There is this idea that tasks are more likely to be completed if there is a leader in charge, but where and how did this become adopted as a truth? And how does this impact both people’s desire to work and their work ethic? Does having a leader actually facilitate a task’s successfulness? Or does it actually hinder it?

 

5 Comments

This podcast was so interesting. It’s just so extremely fascinating to me that Jones began as an activist of racial, economic, and social inequality before transitioning into these dark and twisted practices.

What is also intriguing is how reluctant everyone was to leave the place despite the russian roulette of suicide drinks. This is representative of the impact Jones had on the people, and how powerful a leader can be. Although they were claims of the people to be brainwashed, these people wholeheartedly followed Jones because they believed in his message. This demonstrates that the powerful of a leader, despite the detrimental consequences of Jones’ practices in particular, is unmatched.

1 Comment

Janis’s theory about group thinking is extremely interesting. My main takeaway from the given excerpt of his book is that group thinking is a reference

“…to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action”.

When applying the theory to normal day to day situations it becomes clear that this is something that happens often and most commonly through subliminal peer pressure. Though it may not be explicit, peer pressure, as suggested by Janis, occurs when a group is attempting to concur on a topic/decision, so if  members of the group are steadfast on a decision, whether because they agree with it or because they too are a victim to the pressure, it discourages any alternative suggestions. 

This becomes problematic when considering the consequence of being reluctant to change/alternative actions. Janis addresses one of the most prominent and harmful results of group thinking when he mentions war strategies. Often times military leaders will resort to mass killing, mostly civilians, in order to convince foreign governments to cooperate. Though there are other options there’s a tendency to kill because that has been the unspoken and reigning consensus, so much so that people hesitate to even offer different methods.

Group thinking, in the absence of all the context provided by Janis, seems effective in that it produces quick decisions, however, a deeper analysis of the term makes it clear that while effective, it is also both detrimental to progression and unethical.

 

1 Comment

My main takeaway from Cauto’s article is that somewhere within the duration of the existence of the term transforming leadership there has been the formulation of an alternative meaning different from its original meaning. Cauto credits the creation of the first alternative meaning to Bass. The article argues that the main difference between the original transforming leadership and the more prominent and modern transformational leadership is the context of each definition. 

Bass’s definition describes a relationship between leader and follower in which the direction of influence flows one-way–from the leader to the follower. The context of Bass’s claim is within the scope of formal organization that is constituted by hegemonic behavior. In this relationship the leadership is influenced by the causal factors controlled by the leaders in which the followers are subordinates. This lack of cycling influence hinders 

Burns’s definition differs in that the direction of influence is transferred throughout both parties of the relationship: leader and follower. Burns’s definition is created in the context of social movements that lack formal organization and are influenced by conditions the leader can not control. 

I believe that Bass’s definition constricts the radical nature of transforming leadership by way of “…chang[ing] the test of the radical transformation from social change to the achievement of institutional goals…”

 

2 Comments

My main takeaway from Greenleaf’s article is that servant-leaders are the most effective. According to Greenleaf, 

“The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served”

I agree with that. I believe that individuals that begin as leaders can often lose sight of the needs of their constituents, as opposed to a servant-first leader whose number one priority is fulfilling the needs of the people. It is not to say, however, that all leaders must start as servants in order to accurately serve their people because that is not that case, but I do believe that there is value in someone serving others in a lower position before arising as a leader. 

Another aspect of servant-leadership that I agree with is when Greenleaf claims that a servant 

“…is always searching, listening, expecting that a better wheel for these times is the making”

This desire for something better is also a valuable trait in a leader, but even more important is their drive and initiative to create this. Greenleaf believes this is something found in a servant-first leaders as they are the ones who are always seeking for new opportunities and possibilities. 

A question I have about this article however, is how do account of the great leaders that serve their followers diligently and did not start off servants? How do we consider their effectiveness?

 

6 Comments

One of my main takeaways from this piece is that in order to establish new ideologies, there has to be some level of violence, or threat of violence, involved.

Machiavelli starts off by addressing the fact that people that are used to governing themselves and living by their own laws are going to be unwilling to adapt to new regimes of power. Even if there is success in establishing this new realm of thinking/governing, its preservation won’t last as it will not be long before the people begin to revolt to recover this sense of self agency. He also claims that there is nothing more difficult, unlikely to succeed, and dangerous than trying to initiate a new order. He argues that this is a result of never having actual support–claiming that the population consists of people who are either against the new order in totality or are ‘lukewarm supporters’. This type of resistance is one of the claims Machiavelli uses to justify violent reformation. 

Later in his argument, Machiavelli states that most new establishments will either accomplish nothing or fail unless

“…they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force…”. He believes that unless people are forced there is no way to ensure the movement’s success, no matter how skilled the person in persuasion. 

I do not agree with this article. Even though it may work to use violence to develop a new regime, this new power will not last under fear. If people are discontent, there will be rebellion and thus bloodshed. Force is not the most efficient way to establish a new concept, and it should not and would not be used by a truly effective leader.

 

3 Comments

After listening to the podcast, it becomes evident that in order to discover truth and expose the hidden, one must understand the importance of perception. Humans tend to only believe what is visible to them, and what is seen is what they allow to construct their thought process and how they think concepts. Without considering the extremities of the cave people, it seems foolish that they could think shadows to be actual beings but once we understand that this is all they have ever seen, it is understood that their circumstances have constituted their realities and that we are not different in how we think. The tendency to simply adopt concepts as opposed to further exploring what we can not see is a common flaw in human thought as it limits our framework of thinking. 

The podcast also offers this idea that if one of the trapped prisoners were to leave and discover a more in depth understanding, it would be extremely difficult, especially if they were to adopt this new ideology in an attempt to try to teach it to their still trapped peers–this idea can also be applied to day to day modern human thinking as well. To create a new way of thinking requires the erasure of prior preconceived notions, which is extremely difficult if every other thought possessed was formulated around this concept. Further, to think the unthought can be intimidating and complex because it suggests that everything ever known was untrue or partially accurate, even further complicating these ideologies. As a result of how uncomfortable re-thinking can be for individuals, it is better understood why many tend to reject any other form of thinking that contradicts or disproves theirs–for fear of it deconstructing their universe or meaning of their existence. 

All in all, the podcast provides a strategic and in depth way of thinking about why it is so difficult to form new/advanced theories and ideas. In evaluating these ideas, however, the podcast also subliminally provides the solution to the problem by identifying the obstacles.  

 

1 Comment

Throughout the entirety of Bezio’s piece she demonstrates the historical value within “cultural media artifacts” as she makes parallels to both the political and socio economic behaviors in Shakespeare’s play and present day America. One of the most interesting parallels made in the article is about the presence of feminism as a political factor, usually being combated by a toxic charismatic male leader. In the piece she compares the 2016 election of Trump v Clinton and the relationship between Elizabeth and Richard III, which I thought was a very interesting connection considering the differences in time periods and settings. The best way to understand the comparison, for me at least, was with the analyzation of the quote she included by Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt. He described Richard as someone who thinks he can

“…grab from any woman anything he wants, however much she might resist… ‘Relenting fool. And shallow changing woman!’”

Instantly my mind was taken back to the extremely problematic interview of Trump where he says the infamous quote “Grab her by the pussy”. With the inclusion of the quote by Greenblatt the comparison between the two men become even more clear–two toxic charismatic male leaders that encourage the disavowment of female agency. Later in the article Bezio draws comparisons between Elizabeth and Hillary Clinton as both women that compete with the men despite their vicious attacks, Richard claiming Elizabeth a witch and Trump claiming Clinton a liar/fraud. The demonstration of both women as powerful and fearless leaders in a system renowned for patriarchal behavior, especially in the midst of such behavior, is a significant parallel made and allows me to question what it suggests for women politicians in the future.

 

2 Comments

        After reading both articles, the one that was most influential, to me, in developing a better sense of what leadership is, and how it’s formed, was Camerota’s piece. Though brief, the interview explores what makes a leader, while also discussing how leaders create their legacy– two vital key points that assisted in strengthening my understanding of the term’s actual meaning. 

        In the interview with Harvard alumnus, Bill George, Camerota seeks to discover what it was exactly that crafted MLK Jr. into such an effective leader, where George then responds in a way that gives much of the credit to the way he reacted to his circumstances. George’s claim is that we all experience crucibles yet 

 “it is important that we understand their meaning for our lives, and how they shape our future direction”.

        My initial interpretation of this answer was that despite possessing the characteristics of a leader, it is true trial/tribulation and the way one reacts to it, that constructs leadership. This idea of a leader needing to be placed in a certain circumstance, is a topic that has also been discussed by other scholars, yet Camerota’s interview goes deeper by suggesting it is not merely the circumstance itself but the way in which one reacts to it, that makes all the difference.   

         Further in the interview she then inquired about the impacts and highlights of MLK Jr’s legacy, while also mentioning his affair. George’s response is then that a leader’s legacy is a reflection of  

       “...the character you demonstrate in achieving your purpose…” . 

          This answer thus dismisses her latter question about King’s affair, as his lack of commitment was a minor flaw in comparison to all he accomplished for the black population. King’s affair was irrelevant to his success as a leader and the legacy he left behind because his peaceful and tranquil approach to racial discrimination, in a time when the crisis of racism and racial violence was at an all time high, overpowered any of imperfections that he may have had, i.e, his lack of fidelity. 

        Through the evaluation of these concepts my main takeaway from Camerota is that leadership is heavily influenced by the actions of the leader. According to George, the way that an individual responds to their crucible determines the effectiveness of their leadership while at the same time the actions they take to achieve their goal manufactures their legacy, and through the analyzation of these claims it becomes clear to me that actions displaying leadership are, in a sense, more valuable than characteristics that do. 

 

2 Comments