Many of us have tired of books, articles, and discussions about leadership. After all, there is so much competing and confusing information in the public domain about leadership. On top of that, today’s leaders seem to be getting worse instead of better. But we can’t just give-up and let the confusion continue; we need great leadership now more than ever.
Myth 1: Leadership is Visionary and Inspiring
Myth 2: Business Leaders Manage People
Interesting article. I enjoyed reading it. It’s great to abolish some of the myths of leadership, especially when people think leadership is simply equated to management and control.
Is leadership about people or performance or both? Management is about performance – is it why we need managers? Leadership is about inspiring people so the people working “under” such leadership could manage and lead themselves. For managers, would it be easier to manage performance? Would it be far more difficult to “manage” people?
Leadership is doing the right things, and management is doing the things right. So if we talk about leadership, how about involving the people around the “leaders” so they could do the right things (not just the performance, but respecting the people, listening and responding to their needs, and motivating them to achieve the goals). So leadership is a leader to be, an ongoing empowerment of the people, a behind the scene supporter and encourager, a mentor, a team leader, and most importantly a developer of the “followers” to become the leaders, so everyone shines and achieves their team and individual’s goals.
May be if we rethink about Manage = control. Lead = influence and inspire. Then, the best business leaders are not only the best managers, but best achievers.
John
Human Diversity and the Pursuit of Multiple Truths
Theories in themselves are not the target of postmodernism.
Postmodernism opposes theory based practices…
Theory based practices are those which propose one basic set of truths.
Post modernists believe theories do contain ideas from practice that are beneficial to the education of our children.
Postmodernism states there are a multitude of truths and that educational leaders must be open minded in their pursuit of excellence for their schools.
“Language in a theory relates to culture and power”. This social part of theory makes it political because of its influence on others. Language is part of culture. Culture supports power structures. Power structure creates politics.
Orienting future educators to a variety of epistemologies and approaches.
Resolving the theory-practice gap by using creating a progressive research program that predict rather than include new facts from practice.
This means we should use those practices that are beneficial to the successful education of our students.
My reflection:
The above concepts on post-modernism fit well under Connectivism in that:
Learning is ontological – it’s a state of being in learning, and this relates to growth and development of a person within a network and/or the network (using PLE/PLN). This also relates to human diversity when the learner is engaged and interacting with the networks.
Learning relates to multiple forms of truths and is changing from time to time (as one navigates through the networks)instead of one basic set of truths
It encourages choice and autonomy of the learners (through the mediation of social media, tools and technologies -PLE/PLN). Power in education and learning is re-distributed – in that the learner is empowered to take control of his/her learning, and self-directed learning is also encouraged in the education process.
Distributed knowledge is based on connections with logic and intuition (perception and interpretation)
Emergent learning may be a result of interaction of nodes or networkers within the networks (in pursuit of multiple truths in the networks)
I am however, still thinking about these two concepts on postmodernism:
Theories in themselves are not the target of postmodernism.
Postmodernism opposes theory based practices…
So, is theory still important? Is theory based practice useful?
How about Connectivism based practice? It is an emergent learning practice which would still be context based and thus situational….as in MOOC of CCK09
Experience and feelings cited: exciting, frustrating, seasick, fun. As a whole, communication is the key to success in building a team. And each team member has a role to play in a team.
I would add that trust, group identity. mutual support in team formation and development, individual sharing, interest sharing, goals sharing, a desire to contribute to the team, motivation and most important of all interconnectivity etc. are equally important in ensuring success in virtual team building. At the end, it must achieve common and agreed goals, by both the individuals and the team in pulling together the efforts of everyone.
This is a challenge in networked learning, as each individual may be building their PLN, and this may or may not align with others’ goals. So probably only “like minded” educators or learners may have common goals. And only through negotiation will such goals be agreed upon by the educators or learners.
So team building is hard in networks and communities, and it is not easily sustainable. Each of us has our own goals and aspirations and may even change them as we move on in our life journey.
You may wonder why it is easier to have team building when the team players are involved in a game – in a virtual environment. A game is still a game, it is fun, enjoyable, and probably no one is really really responsible for the ultimate success or failure. In real life, team building is normally treated in a more serious manner. It is more about professionalism, more about real outputs, goals. If the team members did not perform well, he or she could be disciplined… and the consequence could be serious.
So, a virtual game is still a game and in real life it may not be that simple.
How do virtual team building differ from real life ones?
Watch this one on real life team building.
I reckon there are a lot of differences and similarities between team building in a multi-user virtual immersive environment such as Second Life and a real life team building.
What are the similarities and differences?
Similarities: Both could be fun. Both requires good communication to achieve goals. Both requires cooperation and collaboration amongst members to build up the team. Both requires stages of development – Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning to a certain degree….. Both would give “rise to” emotions upon interactions, and the emotional intelligence is required from members in order to succeed.
Differences: Less risky with Second Life, even if team members make mistakes. Virtual world is STILL virtual, so there are a lot of things which are imaginary, avatars which could be represented by anyone – so “people” could be talking with others of different ages, different sex and different experiences. There might be genuine and fake conversation, “fake” sharing – not speaking with the hearts and minds amongst people, trolling, aggression, or great appreciative responses, insufficient or confusing feedback, misinterpretation of message….
In a virtual world, if people can hide behind avatars, anything could happen, and any saying is “allowed” as it is seen as a liberation of their speech.
Of course, this protocol is true only to some extent, as most organisations have set rules for the employees to follow in the social media. So, it is important to be “professional” at all time. That may explain why some people prefer to present themselves in avatars…..
However, in virtual environment, people may be able to reflect more freely and learn as each individual wishes to learn, so far if they could enjoy it….They could even participate in multiple identity, using various avatars, and experiment different ways of behaving themselves….
So anything that could happen in real life team building might be simulated in virtual life, if we like. And if the team members are all getting on with their own ways of “building their PLN”, we could also understand why there is a difference between networking and teambuilding….and how we could build a better team.
Dr. Kent Keith, author of The Case for Servant Leadership and the current CEO of the Greenleaf Center, states that servant leadership is ethical, practical, and meaningful. He identifies seven key practices of servant leaders: self-awareness, listening, changing the pyramid, developing your colleagues, coaching not controlling, unleashing the energy and intelligence of others, and foresight. James Sipe and Don Frick, in their book The Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership, state that servant-leaders are individuals of character, they put people first, they are skilled communicators, they are compassionate collaborators, they use foresight, they are systems thinkers, and they exercise moral authority.
Unlike leadership approaches with a top-down hierarchical style, servant leadership instead emphasizes collaboration, trust, empathy, and the ethical use of power. At heart, the individual is a servant first, making the conscious decision to lead in order to better serve others, not to increase their own power. The objective is to enhance the growth of individuals in the organization and increase teamwork and personal involvement.
That’s servant leadership, where we serve in our “leading” role, especially in a networked learning environment. The best leaders are anonymous, when the “followers” all respond to the leadership “call”: “we have done it through the leadership spirit where every one is leading”. Such leaders won’t need the fame, the honour, because they know their followers and their followers recognise them. Such leaders are altruistic, and always strive hard to serve others, not for their benefits, but others. This is reflected in religious leaders – Jesus, Buddha.
Would it be better to lead without any one following you? Because your “followers” know that they don’t have to follow you to be leaders! They serve others instead and they are practising leadership. Would that be the leadership at its best, not being served or followed – but serving others?
They would be respected.
See also my previous post on servant leadership.
How would servant leadership be applied in education, in on-line learning and social networking?
Have you found any servant leaders in education? Who are they? What do they have in common?
Under connectivism, apart from the technology that I have used (as an enabler) and the various connections made, I have made use of other related personal development resources to enhance my learning.
He mentions about Conscience (modeling), surrounded by Vision (pathfinding), Passion (empowering), and Discipline (aligning)- the four roles of leadership. I found the pathfinding and modeling concept quite similar to Stephen’s learning model.
I have interest in Stephen Covey’s 7th and 8th habits for years.
Emotional and Social Intelligence
I also found the books on emotional intelligence and Social Intelligence by Daniel Goleman very good read. To me, those concepts on the human relationship leverage the effects arising from connections in connectivism.
Motivation
Other further interesting theories include: Self-Determination Theory
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT
It highlights the focus on professional development by creating an environment that facilitates intrinsic motivation.
How do you find the above resources?
1. What sort of resources are you using?
2. How do you use those resources? For reflection? For application?
This is my response to Jenny’s interesting post on Group Think Hi Jenny and Carmen, I love to join your conversation. @Jenny, as posted here http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/cck09-emotional-intelligence-in-online-and-community-learning/ I have been studying, researching EQ for more than a decade and am still intrigued by its application and impl […]
suifaijohnmak
