Leadership and Change

I think our readings point to an inherent need to re-program our cognitive schemas. Shared leadership, leading innovation, leaders vs. authority figures, leadership is everyone's business, it all comes down to releasing our old perceptions of leaders and leadership and changing our consciousness to effectively promote the common good in the new millennium. Life is not hierarchy, it is interconnection; a web, not a ladder. We traditionally think very linear and structured, but the natural state of things is networked and fairly chaotic. Human society has been able to exist outside of this reality for generations, but we have a hit a turning point. We must recognize and live by the inter-connective, holistic, symbiotic rules of nature.

From "Ghandi, King, and Climate Change":

As Albert Einstein said, "You cannot solve a problem at the same level of consciousness that created it." So the first task in tackling global climate change is to change our own consciousness.

Gandhi and King understood this. In fact, they eerily anticipated our predicament and speak to us across the decades about it. They both quite clearly foresaw a time when technological development divorced from development of consciousness would threaten the survival of the planet.

In his last sermon before his death King said, "Through our scientific and technological genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood and yet we have not had the ethical commitment to make of it a brotherhood...We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools."

This last weekend, I re-watched the movie Pleasantville. I was interested to see how many different themes of leadership and change were illustrated in the movie. At first, there were issues of personal change presented in the movie. Watching Bud and Mary Sue shift from today's world into that of the 1950's illustrated a lot of personal change, and in doing that, Bud became much more of a leader. As the town of Pleasantville began to struggle with the changes that were occurring in their town brought on by two 'free thinkers" (Bud and Mary Sue), it is interesting to see how people react.

The people who are more willing to self-examine or accept "gray areas" in their lives are the ones that are "colored in"- it is no surprise that at first it is mostly young people (early adopters, flexible thinkers). As the color spreads, a societal change begins to take hold. More people are drawn to the vivid colors that emotion, passion, and reflection bring. Many people in Pleasantville are very threatened (i.e. the men in the bowling alley) and there are book burnings, the colored malt shoppe windows are smashed, and the "colored" people are discriminated against.

As this change is occurring in Pleasantville, Bud is the one leading the change. Because he has the "vision" of what society could be like in color, he is not afraid of what the change means. He helps others to see that out of the ordinary is okay and that truly living is what creates color in peoples' lives. Mary Sue also becomes a leader in her own life, as well as in the town. She tries to stop the book burning, as she has finally seen what books have to offer.

At the trial where Bud is accused of disturbing the peace by painting the mural, he leads by illustrating how change can occur in others. He helps people understand that change is a natural part of life and that there is more happiness to be had when you don't hide from change. Bud moves the town from fear to acceptance, and as this change is truly made, the whole town is in vivid color. When the change is completed and people ready to lead themselves, Bud is able to return to the present time...

Bud returns ready to lead in real life instead of wishing for a simpler time. While he was in Pleasantville he developed the tools with which to see the larger picture in full color. Although the movie is a bit simplistic, it speaks to the challenge of being a leader in the midst of change. It also illustrates that people can become leaders as they are seeking their own way through the change. Finally, it illustrates that in the best case scenario that new leaders can be developed by the best leaders and the most arduous times.

Any thoughts on this movie- or symbolism I might have missed? I am interested.

I've been thinking lately about change and how society tends to view change in different ways. Some look at change as a great asset while others find it cumbersome. In our class discussion last week something came to mind that I'm curious what others think about it. In our lives today we tend to be able to get answer immediately, we expect to get answers immediately. Wonder if you have strep throat - there is now the quick test, you no longer have to wait 24 hours for the result... taking the LSAT, sign-up online and receive your test scores within weeks instead of months... have a question about a class, email the professor and you'll have a response within a short period of time... deposit money in your account and within moments its available online to view... Technology has made it easier for use to get answers very quickly... and from that it seems we almost always require that "instant gratification"... could this thought be the reason that some have trouble with change? We are not patient to wait for change to fully come around because we expect it to happen immediately and be perfect right away? If this is true, that the reason we don't always endorse change is because we don't want to wait and be patient for the results - how do we encourage and appreciate change in a society where the solution is constantly at our fingertips or just a click away? Any comments? Any thoughts? Am I way out in center field on this one?

From the UofM Brief, published today. The article discusses collaborative leadership styles and conflict resolution among leaders of interdisciplinary research projects. Since so many of us in class work at the U, examples of innovative leadership within our "real world" might be helpful.

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/FeatureStories/Alltogether_now.html

In chapter 7, Kouzes & Posner introduce the concept of leadership along with innovative society or organization and innovation driven practices. If it was mentioned earlier, I may have missed or forgotten it, so I was happy to see the connection between innovation & leadership in this chapter. By now, the chapters have become somewhat predictable and I think introducing the concept of innovation in the context of leadership makes the chapter in the framework of our class more meaningful for me. While the chapter does not dive into it very deeply at all, it would be interesting to examine leadership & change purely through the lenses of innovation. What do you think? Claudia Beermann

I was about to leave a short response to Barbara's posting and discovered the navigation panel is sitting right over the submit button and makes it impossible to post a comment.

Perhaps you may find some connections to global innovation embedded in this news report.