Author: Regenia Miller

Williamson mentions the common argument made that it does not matter which side— Red Republicans or Blue Democrats— wins elections because not much change takes place anyway. As a result, people are willing to vote for whichever side and whoever represents that side to shake things up a bit. This instance definitely took place during the 2016 election season. Many people thought it was pointless to vote because they either believed their voice did not matter, both political parties and their candidates were corrupt anyway, or neither candidate was good enough to take on the position and title of president. Some American voters knew it would be a huge risk to vote in either Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton. Although Clinton won the popular vote, Trump’s popular vote amount was not too far behind in numbers. It only makes sense that some people were willing to take such a big risk in voting for Trump because the policies and practices that he promised to the American people were outrageous. People were willing to risk Trump taking the presidency because his ideas were so out-of-the-box, so extraordinarily controversial.

Would the abolition of the electoral college allow for a more fair and practical application of democracy in the United States? I’m thinking, surely, if the pick for president was solely based on the popular vote then we would have gotten the chance to witness history— the first woman to be elected president— much, much sooner. This may also be where the dissatisfaction with “democracy” comes in for numerous people. The U.S. totes the title of democracy way more than it practices democracy. The American people wanted something different (a more overt, blunt, and emboldened manner to practice racism), so they did something different by allowing a bold racist to grab hold of the executive office.

McFarland strongly urges for leadership to take on a new definition, one in which leaders are supposed to encourage others to reach their best potentials to eventually become leaders themselves, or “facilitate excellence in others.” For this approach to work, leaders must throw out the old and embrace the new, avoid limiting themselves. Some of McFarland’s points about redefining leadership remind me of discussions from earlier on this semester about whether or not leadership is an innate or learned quality. The two outstanding points, everyone is a leader and the best can be brought out in everyone, speaks to this memory. I believe everyone may not have the potential to lead at the forefront in popular/mainstream ways, such as pastoring, social justice activism, being president, being a government official, etc. Yet, each person has a unique set of potential in something that they are good at, and therefore, they can be a leader in that category. A young kid may not have to be president to be a leader. But maybe the kid would be good at making pottery and have the potential to practice leadership in the art world.

2 Comments

The Gileses simply explain an ingroup to be a social group with which one identifies strongly, yet explain an outgroup to be a social group with which one does not identify with strongly. At the surface, this dichotomy can be illustrated via distinct languages, speech styles/dialects, fashion codes, cultural events, traditions, and more. One of the Giles made an interesting point of how people can have dual or even multiple identities. I definitely concur with the idea that a person can switch or be “triggered” to align with a certain identity at certain moments. For instance, a black or African American person may be able to identify with both the more closely knit African American culture and with the American culture at large. Yet, certain cultural aspects, traditions, and codes may come to the forefront of that person’s identity depending on where they are and who they are with. This kind of code-switching can be supported by the social identity theory, which suggests that when an ingroup identity becomes noticeable, then members of that identity are likely to emphasize the most treasured characteristics of it. A native Korean whose first and predominant language may be Korean could find solace in speaking with other native Korean-speakers when surrounded by Americans who solely speak English. Although the person could be able to communicate in English, speaking in Korean with another person would open up a new gateway of possibilities to talk about cultures, traditions, and sentiments that they could both identify with.

Giles’ notes the significant concept of language suicide, which follows that communication codes and language can gradually disappear over time if members of an ingroup are pressured to assimilate into the majority outgroup. Those who identify with “low vitality groups” are pressured to succumb to the dominant groups’ social control. Without a doubt, this phenomenon can be seen on university campuses across the U.S., including here at the University of Richmond. The ways in which white Americans practice, order, and identify with American culture is perpetuated as the mainstream “norm” for any and everyone to follow. This sort of control is especially induced onto smaller ingroup cultures and their members who might only make up a small percentage of the university’s quota. Dominating groups at universities, career and workspaces, etc seek to maintain social privileges in this way and have the audacity to glorify a 7% diversity rate. Someone, please, make it make sense.

Leave a Comment

Throughout history, women have been prevented and discouraged from taking on positions of leadership. Although it would seem counterintuitive, it is more likely that women have learned how to be leaders even more because they have been pushed down into secondary or even tertiary positions. This reminds me of one of the readings we had a couple weeks ago when an author mentioned how minority followers are more likely to know their [oppressive] superiors because they are in positions of followership. I believe this same theory would apply to women because for the longest time women have been forced to watch from the sidelines. So, it would only make sense for women to know the obligations of, the behaviors of, and the best strategies that a [male] leader could use to be their most effective version of a leader.

Schein’s claim that women’s leadership is typically more geared towards world peace, increased opportunities and decreased corruption highly correlates to women’s’ natural ability to be nurturing. In addition, all of these things mentioned could be considered to be utopian values as they would stand opposed to what has been valued throughout history and what is valued today by male leaders. This does not go to say that men strictly desire inequality, corruption, and war from the start. Yet, women have sat back to observe the dominating phenomenon of male leadership and cherry-pick what they would and would not desire as results of their leadership.

In Rosener’s entry, she mentions key aspects of interactive leadership to include the encouragement of participation, the will to share power, and the enhancement of others’ self-worth. These all align with the expectations of how women should lead. They are all along the lines of wider distribution of power and democratic values.

 

1 Comment

Writer Robert Kelley, in his article, compared the quality of leadership to the quality of followership. Without an army, a leader is just a person with great ambitions as there is a lack of people to lead. Kelley then goes on to highlight the importance of effective following. Not everyone is mentally or intellectually fit for the tangible role that they play. For instance, a person could hold and live out the career of being a professor by showing up to their scheduled classes and telling students a bunch of information. Yet, that same person who holds the role of professor could lack the ability to teach or give an adequate amount of information in a way for students to comprehend and retain it.    

Kelley suggests that followers are the ones who truly compose leadership. Leaders could hold visions for organizational goals. Followers participate in bringing those goals to life. Because there is more diversity in followership, followers are able to better tap into their individual talents to bring the leader’s, or the head organizer’s, ideas to pass. Furthermore, Kelley ensures that leaders have the potential to become good followers. In the same way that followers (and leaders alike) study leadership, it is not the worse idea for leaders to study followership. I am a firm believer that a great leader knows when to step back and allow others to lead, anyway. This would not just be a form of co-leadership but the ability to step into the role of being a follower.

After reading Kelley’s listed “Qualities of Followers”, could one consider a follower to be a leader of themself, in almost a sense of self-leadership? The abilities to self-manage, to be honest, to be credible, and to focus their efforts for maximum impact all stand out to me as prominent leadership qualities.    

6 Comments

Sarah McBride is the National Press Secretary for the Human Rights Campaign and currently advocates for LGBTQ+ rights as an openly transgender woman. McBride began national activism as a student at American University in Washington, D.C. when she came out as a transgender woman while serving as the student body president. 

From the start of her speech, McBride assured the audience that the challenge for trans rights broadly stood parallel to gay rights as an analogous experience. People who identify as cisgender do not have an analogous identity that is different from their assigned gender. McBride went on to describe the feeling of being “in the closet” as a continuous sentiment of being homesick. So, when LGBTQ+ members come out of the closet, they do not come out to be happy. Rather, they come out to be free, to alleviate pain, and to feel complete. 

A plethora of injustices is known to follow a person’s identity as trans and with the trans lifestyle. Many openly or recognizably transgender people lose their jobs, are rejected from their families, become homeless, suffer from mental health deterioration, are denied private and public services, and are at higher risk of violence. McBride brought to light how transgender issues intersect with politics on local and national scales. Transgender people, especially after the election of Trump, have been refused healthcare and housing, have been targeted as members of the U.S. military, and struggle immensely to find employment. Much of what the LGBTQ+ community exists for and identifies with conflicts with the political desires of those in office and has much to do with power dynamics and the desire to sustain control.

Furthermore, McBride briefly mentioned the intersectionality between race and ethnicity (identities of people of color) and LGBTQ+ identity. The murders of black transwomen occur daily as a prime example of a combination of transphobia, misogyny, and racism. 

McBride participated in much work and activism during her undergraduate days at American University. The most prominent advice that she gave for universities to increase the safety and inclusion of members of the transgender community is to improve policymaking, to decrease tokenization without true appreciation, to recruit more trans students and faculty, and to courageously speak out against ridicule and injustice. McBride has stood fearless and diligent as a leader in and an advocate for the trans community in the college realm and the U.S. abroad.

Leave a Comment

I was highly intrigued by the story told of Jim Jones and the endeavors he once took hold of during his lifetime. It would have never occurred to be that Jones was not only a preacher but a racial activist who advocated hard for socialist values. One of the speakers in the podcast mentioned just how hard Jones vouched for black people, wanted to help black communities and even encouraged integration within his church. At first, I was thinking to consider Jones to have been a charismatic leader because of his ability to reach and relate to good amount of people, especially those who were being oppressed and were nothing like him. Yet, maybe his sense of “charisma” could have been ingenuine because of the way he spoke “like a black minister” and had the cadence of a black preacher to reach the black community. One could definitely consider Jones to have been a controlling and narcissistic leader. According to the researcher from the podcast, Jones began to talk about himself as if he were a living god after the death of Father Divine. Jones saw just how effective this was for Father Divine and soon became intensely opportunistic. 

I am also unsure of whether or not to consider Jones to have been a transformational leader. His church, People’s Temple, was once regarded as a safe haven and he did seek to aid disparaged communities around him. Yet, it was almost as if Jones tried too hard to do a “good thing” and that goodness backfired severely. Initially, Jones was sincere about fighting against racial inequity. When People’s Temple became established and up on its feet, Jones apparently would recruit people using fear. He would publicly shame people through lashings, harassment by followers, and others for anyone who defected. One could consider him a dictator, transformational leader, servant leader, tyrant, and toxic charismatic all wrapped in one. I believe that some of his followers were definitely victims of groupthink who tried not to deviate from the norms that surrounded them in order to survive. 

3 Comments

Irving Janis made an interesting point about some explanations for “stupid” decisions made by federal decision-makers were incomplete. Janis states, “explanations were incomplete if they concentrated only on disturbances in the behavior of each individual” including “temporary emotional states of elation, fear, or anger that reduce a man’s mental efficiency…” (Janis, 360- 361) This statement makes me think of one reason why some people didn’t vote for Hilary Clinton during the 2016 election. Many Trump supporters, Republicans, etc believed that Hilary was the lesser candidate compared to Trump because she is a woman. And because of her womanhood, she would not have been able to “make rational decisions” due to women’s tendencies to be “emotionally unstable”. This allowed for any opinion of Clinton to be skewed against her. Women are deemed unfit or not as fit as men to be such prominent leaders because emotions could and would get in the way of any capacity to lead. Furthermore, this allows for men to be seen as superior and superior in humanity. In reality, this is a denial of humanity and a clear demonstration of the inability to have self-control, which both contradict qualities of great leadership.

Based on the Bay of Pigs example given in the text, my initial thought of what “groupthink” might have been was the idea that those in a position of leadership are more likely to make decisions based on majority agreements. Janis confirms my thoughts and goes on to explain the causes, symptoms/consequences, and remedies for this “typical phenomena of social conformity”. Janis further confirms my hypothesis with the concept of “concurrence-seeking”, in which norms and harmony are desired typically more than realistic circumstances and conscious feelings. With groupthink, there is so much intentional and unintentional group/peer pressure that rational thinking that would allow for realistic decision-making could be skewed towards immorality or amorality. No one wants to step on anyone else’s toes; no one wants to be the oddball in the room; no one wants to be the source of drama or of conflict.

The film “Thirteen Days” details the behind-the-scenes process in which former President John F. Kennedy and his executive advisors made decisions in handling the Cuban Missile Crisis. They knew that they could not allow the Soviet Union to store missiles in Cuba, so they had to get them out for safety and status reasons. Advisor Bobby, the Assistant to the President, and President JFK had congregated outside of the entire advisory board to discuss options. This was an illustration of Janis’ remedies numbers 1 and 4 because they stepped off as a more condensed group near the start of the film to criticize the group’s thinking more deeply. The President had been presented with 3 options for how to handle the crisis: surgical air strike against missiles, large airstrike against air defenses and missiles or invasion. Initially, the President saw this as the best option, yet as the movie went on, discussions were expanded on choosing the best options. This was an illustration of remedy number 2, in which Janis suggests for a group to have an impartial stance, not definite, on what is to happen to open the floor for inquiry and potential policy alternatives.

 

2 Comments

“Appropriate” by Branden Jacobs-Jenkins advances the idea that America and its people should strive for progress, not perfection, when it comes to addressing historical and present-day racism. This play follows the story of a family of adult siblings, their romantic partners, and their children who have all come together to mourn the loss of their father (grandfather to the kids) and distribute his earnings and possessions. However, they all soon uncover the dark past of their (grand)father who may have been a racist bigot and a member of the secret society of the Ku Klux Klan. The family returns to their father’s home in southeast Arkansas, a former state of the deep South Confederacy. 

Much of the dead father’s prejudice became uncovered not only through physical findings in his house but the behavior and thinking processes of his family members who arrived. Well into the play, one of the children discover an old photo album, which was presumed to have belonged to the grandfather, that encompassed photographed lynchings of African-Americans. These were enslaved African-Americans that once worked the very plantation on which their father’s house stood on. Instances of anti-semitism also occur in the play. The wife of the eldest son, who identifies ethnically and religiously as Jewish, is repeatedly offended by racial slurs used by her sister-in-law and primarily identified by some members of the family as Jewish before anything else. For example, the sister-in-law’s son once refers to the wife of Beau, the eldest son, as “Beau’s Jew wife” rather than “Beau’s wife” or her first name. 

The outstanding message of the play asks a recurrent question of today, “Why do those with power and privilege desire to ignore or to not acknowledge certain parts of history?” It was interesting to see how the children in the play were more willing to openly discuss and explore tragic history than the adults were. Instead of talking about how their father was a hateful and oppressive person, the adult siblings decided to throw the photo album filled with pictures of lynching victims into the garbage. They chose to deny their father’s prejudice as an “easy” way out, as a way that did not make them feel uncomfortable. They felt ashamed to have ever called a hateful figure and bigot leader “dad”. It would have been best for the family, as a whole, to address the past and deal with it in the present in order to make real progress.

Leave a Comment

Many try to tell the stories of immigrants and refugees without understanding them and the situations. The director and filmmaker of the documentary “Revenir”, Kumut Imesh, provides viewers with a unique perspective on how the journey of a person seeking refuge may actually go. “Revenir” follows Imesh as a refuge-seeker, who longed to flee from civil war within his own home country of Ivory Coast. He had left his home, family, friends, job, training, and education back on the African Continent. Ultimately, he ends up in France and obtains citizenship there.

“Revenir” is such a revolutionary film because Imesh not only directs the documentary, but he stars in the documentary. In fact, he had previously journeyed his way from Ivory Coast to France. In the film, he attempts to retrace the steps he had taken on his initial route, which was known as one of the most dangerous routes to migrate on in Africa. The most prominent places that Imesh documents include cities in Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Niger. Imesh’s primary concerns when he arrived at these places were his own safety and the best ways he could make money. He held jobs that were low-paying yet required much production/labor such as selling clothes and beauty items on the streets and fixing computers. 

Typically, documentary-makers and directors observe and interview people other than themselves who have been or go through the struggles of refuge-seeking. The curiosity and desire to learn others’ stories are there for them. However, Imesh’s documentary work is a crucial film as he provides a first-hand look at what it is like to actually tap into survival mode during his journey as a refugee. We, as viewers, witness authenticity in the range of emotions displayed, the interactions that took place and even surrounding conditions that Imesh stepped into to observe. As I witnessed this more direct and personal approach to refuge, I was able to understand the weight of the obstacles that stand in front of people who flee persecution and war at home every day.    

Leave a Comment

In the piece by Richard Couto, James Burns’ definition of transforming leadership is given as “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that… may convert leaders into moral agents.” When I read the terms, “moral agents”, I instantly considered these types of leaders to be individuals who not only follow a moral compass but hold a moral compass. He, then, goes on to say that transforming leadership allows leaders and followers to inspire and elevate each other. This reminded me of the saying that teachers often use in their classrooms, “The students do not only learn from the teacher. But, the teacher learns from the students, every day.” Sure, leaders like teachers are typically in higher positions than their followers or students. Yet, transformational leadership allows leaders to specialize in decision-making and other things, in addition to learning how their specialties branch off into several areas of thinking and various perspectives. Transformational leadership also allows for the gradual transition of a follower into one whom others follow.

I find it interesting how Burns bases morality on “human development” and “a hierarchy of human needs”. Usually, morality stems from a supernatural, transcendent, or Godly point of view. Maybe Burns was attempting to define morality from a secular standpoint so anyone could grasp the concept. But, would that not conflict with those who do not identify with secularism and instead are religiously affiliated? Who is his target audience here?

Part of the article reads that transactional leadership focuses on results, in terms of the expectation of results due to a transactional leader being one who values order and structure. With order and structure comes expectations of concrete results. This contrasts with transformational leadership because it seems that transformational leaders may have their own set values and beliefs. Yet, they do not really weigh expectations onto their followers to result in a certain way.

3 Comments

Robert Greenleaf, in his journal piece, initially implies that there is a distinction between one being a servant and one being a leader. He then goes on to pose the question of whether or not a person can play both roles at the same time. Can a servant-leader hybrid be just as productive? 

Once again (I think I do this with every class topic and discussion), I could not help but compare Greenleaf’s point-of-view of “Leo”, the central figure of Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East, to a religious point-of-view. I find that “Leo” having been first a servant before becoming a noble leader mirrors that to Jesus Christ’s role on Earth. Greenleaf provided a quote, “the great leader is seen as a servant first”. Jesus, during His days on Earth, worked as a carpenter… which was and still is one of the lowliest and humble jobs that anyone could take. It was not until later on that Jesus was regarded as a “noble” leader. Jesus and Leo were both destined to be leaders from the start, however, they knew deep down that they were servants first.  

Greenleaf mentions one problem of accepting the alternatives to fusions of servant and leader: the contradiction in the servant as leader. I don’t think the two contradict, per se, yet there is more of a balance between the two. It seems that service and leadership do fall on opposite sides of the spectrum. Yet, it is best to find the way that these opposites complement each other. It would be most productive and serene to find the ways in which being a servant connects to being a leader, rather than ways in which they are divided. 

Larry Spears’ “Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders” should include his suggestions but not be limited to them. After an in-depth look at “humility” and what it means in leadership, I believe Spears could add “humility” to his list of characteristics. In terms of effectiveness, a humble leader is able to not only acknowledge strengths but is able to acknowledge weaknesses as well, or something the leader can not do. This maximizes effectiveness because too much time nor energy would be wasted on a leader trying to figure out how to do something without having a clue on how to do it. Next, the amount of care that a leader has will follow effectiveness. This would really be a test of whether or not the leader truly cares for the people or for her/his own pride and reputation. 

1 Comment

In The Prince, Machiavelli gives advice on the best way(s) for how rulers are to approach governing new cities with citizens who formerly lived freely under the law. In a way, citizens weren’t really restricted by laws because they helped create, implement and maintain their laws; they were autonomous. So, a ruler, maybe a prince, was to be the one who established any true “laws”. Because they were autonomous, I believe their “laws” should be called “agreements” or “[shared] norms” instead. Although Machiavelli gives three options for princes to take when governing a formerly autonomous, he strongly advises the first option for a prince to despoil the preexisting laws. He heavily supported the first option using this logic: if a prince takes reign over a free city without destroying it, then the prince will be destroyed by it because people can rebel against his rule in the name of liberty and tradition. I agree to the extent that citizens would only desire to return to their old way of law and rebel if the ruler does something undesirable/unfair and lacks authority anyway. Therefore, I believe the best option for a prince to take is option 2: “go and live there in person”. I understand this advice to be equivalent to, “If you can’t beat them, then join them.”

Machiavelli’s reference to Moses as a “prince by merit” challenged my thinking. I always thought that Moses was chosen by God because God had divine favor on him, not because of anything special that Moses had done or possessed. When I think of merit, I think of hard work and dedication put into something (that would eventually produce an outcome). So, would it really be appropriate to say that Moses was a “prince by merit” and not fortune? In technical terms, Moses was not a prince by fortune either. I think of “fortune” having a more secular connotation, in which the universe, not God, can reward one with “good fortune”. Perhaps, it would be more probable to make good “fortune” synonymous with “blessings (in Biblical terms).

5 Comments

Hero: Pope Francis

Leader: Angela Davis

[Negative] Role Model: Donald Trump Sr.

Leave a Comment