Author: Natalie Benham

I found the article by Williamson to be very interesting. The points made about how we need to first deal with our past, especially in terms of racial bias, was very accurate because we do still see race come up as some kind of inequality in America to this day. Bringing this point in with the leadership article, the difference between management and leadership is something I didn’t think about really but now that I am aware of it, it makes sense. It’s one thing to just tell people what to do but it’s another to have the skill of leading people to do better, and that’s the kind of service we need in our democratic state when dealing with these issues unsolved.

Overall, I think one of the main points from both articles is to focus on some kind of community strength because the issues brought up by Williamson need leaders in this new perspective given by McFarland. Leaders who understand human emotion and are sensitive and all that need those skills in order to bring people up and our government needs to work on equality of the people since, from the example of the founding documents, the people are the ones who should be the true leaders.

5 Comments

During one of my AASU meetings, we had Dr. Lu and Dr. Erkulwater came in and we had like a mini panel for the members of AASU. They talked about how it felt to be one of the only Asian, female faculty members on campus. It was interesting to hear their responses on when students ask them about their ethnicity and how they respond to it.

One of the points hit was that Dr. Erkulwater said it was worse when students did not use “Dr.” but instead said “Mrs.” or something because she earned her degree. She also mentioned how she does not feel obligated to be a mentor like figure to other Asian students necessarily, but that being a mentor comes with the job description so any student who may seek her help, she would be willing to give it.

I found it especially interesting when Dr. Lu said that being one of the only Asian faculty on campus did not bother her that much. She tended not to think about it and when she did get homesick, she would just go home. She mentioned that the most awkward situation she was in on campus was in fact our meeting because it was a specific place that other Asians were gathering, in an area that was not predominantly Asian, and that it was very weird for her. However, it does not deter her from working here because she likes to think of her job as more important than the fact that there are not many other Asians around. Both Dr. Lu and Dr. Erkulwater said they were very happy they liked each other and got along because it would be a bit sad if a few of the only Asians were NOT friends.

I think it is interesting to hear that some of their fears or setbacks are not necessarily from being Asian, but are common feelings that could be expressed by any other professor, especially the “Dr.” thing. They are definitely highly looked upon for us and their help with pulling off Asia week into something a little better than the original plan was greatly appreciated and they put in the work for what they want, regardless of race but because of work habit.

Leave a Comment

I found it interesting how the article talked about the communication being a big part in the identities of the various groups and it makes sense because there are groups of people who may believe similar things but just express it differently or have a common theme but varying goals within the theme, like the example of religion or cultures between the same country.

I originally thought the article was going to talk about groups based on beliefs and parts of the social aspect that we get to choose to be apart of, but the more I read the more it talked about in-outgroups/intergroups from instances without choice, like where you were born or how you grew up. I think the fact that the “out” group is a group that you do not identify with as much was an interesting choice of names because maybe it isn’t that you want to be out of the group or excluded but maybe part of it is just societal and people become placed into these groups without even realizing it.

The grouping system in general seems very unpersonal because it is placing you into an ingroup or outgroup for whatever topic is at hand and one section of the article talked about how any site of engaging with outgroup behavior was frowned upon but I feel like people should get to have more choice in some parts of grouping. Obviously you can’t change where you were born or anything but for the things that you are supposed to be allowed to decide on your own, I don’t think there should necessarily be anything wrong with switching or creating a new ingroup for what you want. I don’t really know though. I do think it is interesting to think about though because I never thought of “my identities” as these in or out groups really I just kind of knew that they were part of me.

2 Comments

I think when the video talked about how women were finally “given” the right to vote that it truly was a downplay of all of the hard work and dedication they put into fighting the Constitution and men that kept not passing the amendments. I guess I never realized that it took a whole 72 years to finally ratify the Constitution and it is definitely not portrayed that way in school either, at least from my history classes. I think that it is also sad that we are still fighting for true equality in some aspects of today’s society because we have already come so far.

The articles about leadership I agree with on some level. The second one talks more about how it is not necessarily that women are better leaders but more so that their experiences provide a new and exciting perspective to some of the challenges in the workplace that men may not think to try. It is a combination of what the specific aspect of the career entails and then of course qualifications for the job. Of course I am all for more equal pay if the same job is being done and girl power and all that but I don’t think that it should entirely be about women needing to take over in all leadership positions.

I did like the second article talking about how maybe the “stereotypical qualities” of women could be some reasons why women have these different views about how to solve issues within the workplace. I also think that from the first article, it was interesting that Schein talks about how Great Man theory does not pertain to this gap between men and women in leading positions.

5 Comments

I think this idea is a much needed and very overlooked concept about success in the workplace. I myself have even overlooked it sometimes because it is so easy to just look at the leader of a group and talk about how they are doing and their success but a leader literally is nothing without their followers so it is important to shed light on those that make a leader look good (or bad). I found it interesting the idea of followers that derive their motivation from ambition because it reminds me a lot of servant leadership. Kelley talks about how some workers have the intentions of rising up in the chain of command and in that sense, it is like they were a servant first to their boss, and then they became a boss to someone else.

Kelley also talks about how leadership and followership basically have people of all the same qualities, it is just a matter of what specific role they are playing on that day at that time of analysis that determines if they are in the followership category or the leadership category. Kelley then goes on to talk about ways to implement ways to keep effective followers in different scenarios and while I think they are practical, employees do not always have that perfect balance of qualities mentioned earlier in the article and so putting this ideas into place will most likely show difficulty. I know that it is supposed to be ways to encourage effective followers but it does not mean every group of people will have the right mindset about changes because maybe they think they are already good at what they do.

5 Comments

I previously did not have any knowledge of Jim Jones and Jonestown (which may be bad sorry) so I was very shocked at the whole podcast. The beginning was even alarming because the hosts were talking about how he started out with a bunch of good things but kept alluding to later in the podcast when we would find out some of the not so good acts he and his followers committed. I find it interesting how they mention the followers rationalizing Jones’ actions because they were just already so invested in him and that they didn’t really know anything else because they were so deep into his beliefs. This reminds me of parts of the groupthink where the other people may rationalize unrealistic dangers because they just didn’t see the enemy as an actual threat.

I guess I am surprised at how not more than those twenty people did not want to defect, especially after they weren’t really “allowed” to go back to America and then when the congressmen was assassinated but okay. The contradictions he used when he would go against The Bible but also quote scripture would be a major sign of crazy to me if someone tried to start this kind of church based on these aspects and it wasn’t even THAT long ago and that’s terrifying. Also how he admired Hitler that’s major weirdo stuff.

4 Comments

Firstly, the play Appropriate was extremely well done. I thought the acting was really great and you could tell that they put a lot of work into it.

Secondly, the play itself was a little confusing and had so many different elements to it that made it both very interesting and also hard to understand. We talked about it after in my FYS (my teacher is the director) and she loved the feedback my class had. One student pointed out the foreshadowing of the little boy putting the lampshade on his head and then later in the play coming down with the KKK mask on his head and I thought that was an interesting point because both times, the child was just an innocent little kid who didn’t really know what he was doing but the adults knew exactly what that was supposed to represent. Professor Holland mentioned that in her view of the play, every time the cicadas chirped, it was supposed to represent another thirteen years had passed and I definitely did not pick up on that when I was watching it. I think it was an interesting ending as well when the house fell apart and was also supposed to represent the family falling apart with it because it shows the relationship between things that are important in our lives. Some parts I still do not necessarily know why they were in the play like when Franz walked down the stairs to the older cousin doing his thing on the couch or the relationship between the two cousins that was very creepy and I did not like that at all.

Overall, I enjoyed the play very much and I think some of the points about racism and prejudices were very powerful. It also puts an emphasis on family matters which is another important aspect.

Leave a Comment

The concept of “groupthink” is very interesting because it makes sense that if you are in a very close, cohesive group, you won’t want to stray from the majority because you will feel isolated. However, when it comes to serious matters such as the Bay of Pigs, it would obviously make sense to try and think about the situation from all perspectives, like how the Cuban Missile Crisis was carried out. But also, it is really easy for me to say this because I am on the outside looking in and I can see why alternative opinions are needed. This goes back to the article by Janis and how those who are guilty of groupthink probably don’t even realize that they are doing it.

When looking at groupthink from a less serious matter, because Janis stated that it can happen in business and other areas as well, it seems like something that would happen less because in situations that are not as critical like protecting the United States, dissenting opinions are encouraged. Personally, I was always taught to say what I believe or to speak out when I either question something or do not agree (when appropriate of course). People even debate for fun because arguing different sides makes things exciting.

Overall, I think that it can be important to get opposing opinions in any crucial decision, no matter how big or small. I agree with Janis about how ending groupthink can be difficult when time plays a factor but I think that understanding how Kennedy carried out the Cuban Missile Crisis can be a huge help since he kept the same administration as the Bay of Pigs but allowed for a bunch of people to input their doubts and fears on the topic at hand.

4 Comments

In Couto’s article, I found it interesting when he explained his opinion that “transformation” was more about modifying leadership and the condition of the leader while “transforming” is the process of leadership. These two words are very similar and yet, they have different meanings that all relate back to this one topic of leadership. The definitions vary a little as well with Bass’s idea of transformational leaders transforming the followers and Burns’s idea of followers transforming leaders based on their interactions. I honestly find all of these different views to be confusing because then I can’t tell if I like transformational leadership or not, especially with the articles from the previous class and those alternating opinions as well.

The second article goes into a very simplified definition of transactional leadership, which is focused on the structure and order of something like a business or other large company/group of people. It drove home the idea that transactional is more about a set idea while transformational is about the opportunity and potential of something. Transactional leadership coming from “rational-legal” leadership was also an interesting idea because it states that it is “the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge” and I think that in this explanation, transactional leadership is portrayed as, in a way, more useful/vital than transformational. Although, the same issue arises with this article as the last in that all of the differing views from the articles last class make it difficult to tell which type of leadership is better or more efficient but I think that also goes to show how these situations that call for leaders are very subjective and are all different.

2 Comments

In the introduction to Greenleaf’s article, the character of Leo reminded me of how a lot of higher up business people tend to higher assistants or helpers and those people tend to do a lot of the managing and organizing and without them, the life of the boss would be way more complicated and stressful. A lot of times that assistant is just starting out too and can then go to get a job higher up and the cycle may sort of repeat but it still exemplifies the idea of servant first, leader second. Greenleaf also talks about how remembering history and keeping it in context of present and future events is vital because it helps to create these new positions. There is also mention of how if someone has known the past, they are reluctant to change with the present and we see that a lot today, maybe even more than back three decades when the article was written because in some places, a lot of older people are still very set in their ways from precedents of their family or just what they have lived through and people are afraid of change sometimes or they do not want to accept that they may have been wrong or at least not all correct in what they have believed for their whole lives.

The second article when explaining the ten characteristics of a servant leader seems to relate a lot to what we read about humility and charismatic leaders because you have to listen to others and have a goal to put their needs first to better the community as a whole. There is an emphasis on being one with their followers so that you can better help them with their troubles. The beginning talks about how positive character traits can be taught and learned and that takes me back to the very beginning when we talked about if you could learn how to be a leader or if you are just born with those traits and I think it is more obvious after this article to say that leaders arise due to the situation, but of course they have specific qualities that benefit them in leading others.

Leave a Comment

Wow. This talk was really powerful, and she brought up a lot of points about like the impact of what people are doing that I do not necessarily always think about or even know. She talked about how everyone always talks about restrooms and how they are the driving factor in why anti-trans or anti-LGBTQ people can get legislation dissolved and how when it starts with a bathroom, it leads to transgenders not being able to go out into society because they cannot find a restroom in public and can only be away from home for a few hours and so even though it seems like something as simple as a restroom, it’s a disguise for pushing all trans people back down and into the shadows. I really liked how she stated she transitioned not to be happy, but to be free. I think that some people who are against LGBTQ people see it as a way for them to be happy and so they think that they can just stop feeling that way but for trans people especially, it’s MORE than being happy it’s relieving that they can begin to feel like themselves which what any human should have the right to do. Sarah quoted MLK and a few other people and that made me think about our class discussions and how the people we talk about really are leaders because people in present day quote them in their speeches and the things that they say are still true in this day and age. She quoted MLK when he talked about the importance of “now” and how it’s not something that can be dragged out and ignored because this is people’s lives that we have the power to impact and it’s even more vital because it is, in some drastic cases, whether or not someone can live. Sarah brought up how legislation under the Trump administration is taking to the court cases about disbanding laws that protect LGBTQ people from restaurants, jobs, public places, etc all because they are LGBTQ and I’m just like ??? what the heck Trump always be on his crackhead hours or something because it’s not like they are any less of a person and why should they have to be asked to leave restaurants or be able to be fired ESPECIALLY in this day and age like if someone has a problem with it they have the right to leave themselves but what makes them think someone else should leave if they aren’t even bothering you? Anyway, another point she brought up had a lot to do with the reading of recent articles, including The Prince, or at least I thought it did, because she mentions how it’s the people’s job to make the difference and everyone has a part in it, not just someone who is representing the group like Sarah who goes out and speaks to people. The real action is completed when the people she talks to gets involved as well and it made me think of the idea that a leader is not a leader without their followers because then who would they be motivating and leading?

 

Overall I definitely enjoyed the talk and I really liked how President Crutcher has started this series.

Leave a Comment

Machiavelli’s point about the oppressor versus being oppressed is one that I have found to be brought up a lot in class discussions. I remember talking about how in order to be relieved from oppression, sometimes you must become the oppressor and I think that can tie into this topic because the article mentioned how if the prince seems to be too wish-y washy or even if they gain their prince-ship from family, they can be easily overturned and removed from power (I am absolutely not saying that oppression or anything is good lol just making that clear). Relating that more to leadership and being a good prince and the whole “being feared” idea, I think that in a way, it makes sense because for them to maintain power and control of the people, they can’t seem to be too persuasive and unsure of what they are doing. Basically, I agree that for a prince to be really effective, they do need to have a fear factor about them so that it keeps people in check and the people don’t want to go against him as long as he really is providing for them and they feel like they are being taken care of. I remember having teachers that I was so scared to talk to or make a mistake in front of just because the vibe of the classroom was so serious and down to business but I also remember that the teacher was one of the best I had had in the way that they taught and that is the point of going to school. We are there (or here) to learn and the retaining of the information is more important than if I was the teacher’s favorite or if they were fun.

 

I also thought the idea about causing chaos in order to gain control, or to at least seem like you are fixing the problem even though you really were the reason it all started. While this is definitely manipulation on the prince’s part in order to seem more put together, it clearly works because people use it now but usually in less serious matters. Even as demonstrations, someone may get people fired up about something and then make a statement that puts things into perspective which might not have been appreciated if the first person had not been as mad or angry.

3 Comments

I think it is interesting how they talk about history needing to be defined more specifically when looking at the involvement of women. But the question about how to decide what that definition means is a fair point because it’s subjective and whoever is asked could have a varying view on what history is and how it should be accounted for than the previous person asked. The Great Man Theory is of course based off of men because they were the ones who were allowed to thrive in that society and so that is why we have to make assumptions on the build up of history, not saying that it is right.

I think another important aspect that they brought up was that it wasn’t that women just did not participate in science or any kind of daily life that was not family oriented, they merely had to improvise by taking a man’s name or dressing as such so that they could contribute to the developing world. I don’t think that this was right, but in some ways, it was a good thing to have happened because now we see the importance of involving women and trying to recover from those times in history, no matter the definition, that women were always less represented in. In school and growing up, I just remember hearing how being a woman in STEM is important and rare and that if I like science, I should definitely be proud of that and I like that that is the message being sent to kids these days. Of course, the ideal would have been that women were always represented equally but in reality, being able to recognize the importance now is a vital step in our society today.

4 Comments

I think it’s very easy to see from the outside how Richard was being manipulative, especially because he talked to the camera. Seeing how easy it was for him to trick people into thinking and agreeing with him on whatever he said is scary. (Also how in the world did he convince that girl to marry him in the beginning right next to her dead husband?? I am still shook about that). Including Dr. Bezio’s article, I really liked the point about how women were Richard’s overall downfall because I had not thought of it in that way. The quote from Richard when he talked about being able to murder while smiling and how he smiled as he fell to his death was actually terrifying.

I’d like to say it is easy to prevent bad leaders from gaining power but both Richard and Trump had a way of making enough people believe them and the fact that they were able to do it, and that this tactic stems from such a long time ago makes me more concerned for America than I was already. As I was watching the movie, all I could think about was how these people let him get this far and how disgusting Richard was. Then I read Dr. Bezio’s article and I was appalled by how I had not seen just how manipulative Trump had been to the American people. I knew he had lied and done bad things but seeing how Richard didn’t even care about his actions and then the connection to Richard and Trump, it’s sad to know that someone like those two men had any power given to them at all.

2 Comments

The article written by Carson talks about how King should be remembered more for his work in the actual movement rather than his role as a leader. Carson mentions how King did not want to be charismatic because of those sketchy elements that were brought up in class like manipulation and how leaders need a mysterious quality to them in order to attract an audience. Rather than being a flawless role model for the whole world to follow, I like how the article goes into depth about King embracing his flaws and his fears to the world instead of acting all high and mighty. I think any great leader should have the ability to say that they are scared or admit and show people that they are not perfect because to me, it would intrigue me more by knowing I can actually relate to this person rather than be intimidated and a bit sad that I may not be able to reach the standards they live by.

I did find it interesting how the article goes from talking about King and his major involvement in the black movement and all the actual progress that happened because of him, and then sheds light on the fact that the movement still would have happened without him but may have not been as quick to success. Yes, I’m sure the movement would have progressed in some capacity but it would have been more violent and would it have been worth it to not have King as such a figurehead for this movement just because he was merely a “helper” with other leaders during this time? I found that part of the article a bit contradictory but overall I still got the impression and believe that King was a great leader who showed people that he was human above all else who had fears and dreams just the same as the next person. I feel like that was one aspect that made him so attractable to others because they were able to see him as one of their own and he even compromised his black follower base to not hinder his beliefs of nonviolence and that in itself is so admirable.

3 Comments

Leave a Comment