Last week's definition: The talents of employing appropriate emotional approaches in varying situations and developing effective relationships to coordinate the strengths of many to accomplish an overall goal.
This week's definition: The talents of employing appropriate emotional approaches in varying situations and developing effective relationships to coordinate the strengths of many to accomplish an overall goal.
Analysis of the differences in the definitions:
As can be noticed, this week my definition has not changed from last week's. Going back to my comments in week two about Hitler and the connotation of leadership, I stand by what I said earlier - just because someone is a leader does not mean they do good things. While most of us really want to incorporate ethics in the definition of leadership, I do not believe ethics has a place in the overall definition. If we are talking about good leadership then indeed, I think a good leader must understand and be able to handle right vs. right situations (Kidder, 2003) and especially right vs. wrong situations. However, in order to exhibit leadership in it's most basic, and unfortunately even in it's most effective manner, it is not necessary that one have a functioning ethical compass.
Reference:
Kidder, R. M. (2003). "Overview: The ethics of right vs. right." How Good People Make Tough Choices (pp. 13 - 29). New York: Simon & Schuster.
Nicole, very nice thoughts, and well-said. I don't necessarily agree with you, but you are arguing thoughtfully, so I can't fault you on the content of your comments.
Any thoughts on the Lee and King (2001) reading? I realize you have to pick very carefully given the restrictions of the assignment, but I'm just interested to know your thoughts on whether personal vision can be an evil personal vision...?
Grade: 10 out of 10
Clarity of the new definition: 2 points out of 2 possible
Thoughtfulness of the analysis: 6 points out of 6 possible
Grammar, spelling, and APA style: 2 points out of 2 possible
Jude,
I do think that a personal vision can be a selfish personal vision, and thus can lead to morally wrong or evil consequences. Lee and King's (2001) article emphasizes the need for a vision, or direction, and often we see that direction pointing down the (ethically) wrong path. In fact they point out that one's personal vision "doesn't have to meet anyone else's standards." Which to me welcomes selfish thinking. Paul and Elder's (2006) "Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning", tells us that ethical beings should in fact have very objective, ethical standards. If one is encouraged to ignore others' standards, then that leaves the ethical nature of a personal vision open to any location on the spectrum.
(I chose to address your question with a return comment, I am not sure if you mean me to address it in my next entry, but then my entries would get quite lengthy! I did, however, want to share my thoughts, so if in the future I should go about it another way, please let me know.) Thanks!