New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction. There are many different types of leadership, which can be positive or negative in nature."

My definitions are intended to be an overview of leadership itself. The readings for this week seemed to be talking more about groups than leadership in general. Due to this, I did not integrate the readings into my base definition of leadership.

Interacting in Teams and Groups, written by Komives in 1998 talked about forming, storming, norming, and performing. I was actually taught about these four things in middle school, though I'm not sure what class it was in. Therefore, I was surprised to find it in this class. When I talked to my friend about this, he mentioned that he had actually heard about the forming, storming, norming, and performing process in one of his CSCI classes. I take this to mean that these four steps are quite relevant to the "real world" and that I should use that information to determine at what point a group I am in will start being able to perform.

Reference: Komives, S. R., Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. R. (1998). "Interacting in Teams and Groups." Exploring Leadership: For college students who want to make a difference (pp. 165 - 194). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction. There are many different types of leadership, which can be positive or negative in nature."

Again, my goal is to provide a general definition of leadership. The readings for this week seemed to be talking more about online collaboration than leadership in general. Due to this, I did not integrate the readings into my base definition of leadership.

How Offline Gatherings Affect Online Communities, written by Sessions in 2010 was a good article about online communities. My takeaway from this article is that it's important to recognize the effects that occur when members from one group break away for a period to interact with one another in a smaller group. The article mentions that although the people who met up offline ended up with stronger ties to the community, those with weak ties to the community were negatively affected by the event. I might be stretching, but I feel I could apply these findings to group work at the organization I end up working at by making sure not to become isolated in one specific group.

Reference: Sessions, L. F. (2010). How offline gatherings affect online communities: When virtual community members 'meet up'. Information, Communication & Society, 13(3), 375-395. doi:10.1080/13691180903468954

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction. There are many different types of leadership, which can be positive or negative in nature."

Similar to last week, I tend to prefer a more general definition of leadership. The readings for this week seemed to have advice for how to become more effective leaders. Due to this, I did not integrate the readings into my base definition of leadership.

Immunity to Change, written by Kegan and Lahey in 2009 was an interesting article. But I am not so sure I can agree with the idea that there is only one big thing I should be focusing on. The chapter seems to take a negative bent when it talks about the control issues Peter had (p. 64). In fact, that seems to contradict the numerous readings we have had which state that people should focus on what they are good at. For this reason, I'm not entirely certain I should take it to heart.

Reference: Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). "We Never Had a Language for It" Immunity to Change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization (pp. 61 - 84). Boston: Harvard Business Press.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction. There are many different types of leadership, which can be positive or negative in nature."

In response to Jude's request, I decided that my leadership definition could use a bit of updating to reflect what I've learned in general over the course. However, I find it a bit difficult to rationalize updating it based on each article. It seems to me that each article has its own version of leadership and that the concept of leadership at its most base is far more general than any definition I could interpret from a given article. This is why I tend to be hesitant when faced with the option of changing my definition after each week (including this one).

The Sweet Spot for Achievement, written by Daniel Goleman in 2006 really resonated with me. I definitely have experienced the results of the performance vs. stress graph before. However, it sometimes feels like the drop after optimal performance is far steeper than the picture shows. I'm not necessarily certain that his argument required the backing of neuroscience, but it's nice to see that Goleman tries to back up his claims with scientific evidence when possible.

Reference: Goleman, D. (2006). "The Sweet Spot for Achievement." Social Intelligence: The new science of human relationships (pp. 267 - 284). New York: Bantam Books.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction."

Again, I feel my basic understanding of leadership is solid. What I learn from the readings definitely affects how I think about leadership itself, but at its base, I feel this definition defines leadership the best.

As I am looking forward to being a business analyst when I graduate from Carlson this May, "Get on the Balcony" by Heifetz (2002) resonated well with me. Process analysis - an important tool in any business analyst's kit - makes heavy use of looking at a situation through various perspectives. Beyond process analysis, leadership relies on being able to balance one's own perspective with the perspectives of others. This is indeed a daunting task, but I feel that Heifetz correctly addressed the subject when he stated, "To be effective, you must respond to what is happening," (p. 73).

Reference: Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). "Get on the balcony." Leadership on the Line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading (pp. 51 - 74). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction."

Similar to previous weeks, I do not feel that the readings have fundamentally altered my basic definition of what leadership is. Though I do agree that there are ethical dilemmas in leadership and that good leadership is not static, I feel that a simple definition is still the best option.

The Kidder (2003) reading, The Ethics of Right vs. Right, has helped to cement my concept of ethics as an important tool for decision making. I actually took a political philosophy class during freshman year which framed many ethical decisions behind Immanuel Kant's rule-based thinking. The overlap between that class and this one has definitely helped me to properly frame the use of ethics within decision-making processes in a broader leadership context, rather than just a political one.

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.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction."

After reading the "Ground Your Leadership in Personal Vision" article by King and Lee, I was really grappling with adding "according to one's personal vision" to the end of the definition. On the one hand, that makes perfect sense, but on the other hand I feel that it's already implied. To keep it simple, I decided to leave my definition as it is.

This is the first reading since "The Power of Emotional Intelligence" that I've actually agreed with. The main point of the article - that one's personal vision is an important part of his/her leadership style - rings quite true. One's personal vision can definitely frame how one leads, and if one follows his/her own vision, there seems to be a greater potential for success. However, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that one needs to be incredibly introspective to be a good leader. Rather, I see it as an ideal that can never truly be reached. After all, do any of us really know what we want?

References:
Goleman, D. and Boyatzis R. and McKee A. (2002). Primal leadership: learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Lee, R. J., & King, S. N. (2001). Ground your leadership vision in a personal vision. Discovering the Leader in You: A guide to realizing your personal leadership potential (pp. 31 - 54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction."

Again, I do not believe my definition of leadership needs to change as a result of the latest readings. Neither reading managed to influence my thoughts on leadership. Therefore, I will continue to use the same definition I have for the past few blogs.

I found it extremely difficult to take Kyle's (1998) argument in "The Sovereign" seriously. The basic analogy does have some merit, but the degree to which he took it was a bit much. When leaders as a whole were compared to the Messiah in Christian theology, I nearly stopped reading (p. 160). Similarly, Goleman and Boyatzis's (2008) claims that leadership could be measured through neuroscience were exceptionally bold. I don't have enough information to credit or discredit their claims, but I think a healthy skepticism is necessary for cases like this.

Reference List:
Goleman, D., & Boyatzis, R. (2008). "Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership." Harvard Business Review, 86(9), 74-81. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=keh&AN=33983120&site=ehost-live

Kyle, D.T. (1998). "The Sovereign: The Power of Presence." The Four Powers of Leadership: Presence, Intention, Wisdom, Compassion (pp. 151-191). Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications Inc.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction."

I think I have a pretty solid definition of leadership here. Rath and Conchie's book, Strengths-based Leadership, did not actually affect what I believe leadership to be. Rather, it made me reflect on what kind of leader I actually am. Thus, I will continue to use last week's definition for this week.

I much prefer the "leadership styles" approach presented in "The Leadership Repertoire." The idea that there are only five traits that define a leader seems extremely arbitrary to me. Additionally, I view the results process as one similar to a horoscope - if you presented five random traits from the book as a person's results, it is likely the person would consider them accurate. Due to this, I find it hard to place too much stock in Strengths-based Leadership.

Reference List:
Goleman, D. and Boyatzis R. and McKee A. 2002 . The Leadership Repertoire. Harvard, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Rath, T. and Conchie, B. 2009. Strengths-based Leadership: Great teams, leaders, and why people follow. Washington, D.C: Gallup Press.

New definition: "Leadership is the ability to influence or motivate a given group of people in a certain direction."

After having read "Deciding What You Believe", I realized that there are many definitions that I could add onto my statement (such as whether leadership is positive or negative), but that if I added on all the differentiations mentioned in the text, I would have a huge definition that would be difficult to read. My new definition is more clear and concise than the previous one, which I believe makes it more understandable.

I did like the binary approach in "Deciding What You Believe". The text made me think more clearly about my own beliefs, even if I disagreed with many of the arguments. Though I do not wish to be condescending I find it difficult to believe that people would argue that leadership can only be positive. After all, it's not like Hitler managed his soldiers into war; they were led. Another difficulty I had with the reading was the combative nature of the arguments. Calling another person "Shallow, shallow, shallow"(Terry, 2001, p. 37) is not something that is expected in a civilized debate.

Reference List
Terry, R. 2001. Seven Zones for Leadership. California: Davies-Black Publishing.