This weeks definition: Though a group of people may have the same interests in mind to achieve a common goal together, it is absolutely pertinent that clear communication within the overall group is established to ensure the success of the group. The gaps between values and goals must be filled in order for equilibrium. Despite the overall desire to accomplish a task in mind, a lack of communication can quickly derail the accomplishments of the group.

Of course the task of achieving a specific task within a group may seem easy enough as long as that specific task is identified, but this weeks reading by Saphiere, Mik, & Devires changed my overall definition and take on the meaning of leadership most by highlighting the importance of communication and the ways in which communication can be very complex. Though a group may have a specific goal which everyone wants to achieve it's extremely important that the ways in which each individual group member communicates is established early on in the start of the group to save wasted time, possible hurt feelings, and confusion. This very much related to my group this semester for our weekly posts. Though we all had a common goal in mind set off to achieve, it was soon realized my many of us that one person saying one thing meant something very different to the other person talking in that information, regardless of how clear or straightforward the person talking thought it was. This scenario (much more common than I thought) is known by Devires et al., 2005 as the "house of mirrors" when the communicator means one thing, while the listener may experience a completely different experience. This particular kind of scenario made me realize how much this has happened in past situations in my life, but has made me realize even more that it's probably one of the easiest kinds of situations to fix with a little revision and clarity. This leadership class has taught me the importance of constant revision, too! Revision very much plays into this communication setting as well. Though a group may "think" they're all on the same page as one another, it will really only help rather than hurt to come back to check in every week or so (depending on the length of the project) to make sure everyone is still on the same page, and still has the very same goals in mind. A noble leader will hold communication as a top priority and see the value and importance of differing values and gaps in values within groups, and seek to make bridges between those gaps to ensure communication from one end of the bridge to the other is clear- without those gaps closed on the bridge, people are sure to fall through!

References:
Saphiere, D. H., Mikk, B. K., & Devries, B. I. (2005). "Factors Affecting Communication Style: Starring acts in the circus." 47 - 82. Retrieved from http://www.download-it.org/free_files/Pages%20from%20Chapter%2003%20-%20Factors%20Affecting%20Communication%20Style-c2c273a32b32ce590fe42518fa48db05.pdf.

This weeks definition: Change in oneself won't come knocking on our door by itself. If we want change to happen, we need to want it to happen. Leaders must put efforts towards actively seeking out the differences between their real self and ideal self to achieve the gaps which exist between the two. It is vital for leaders to be fully self aware and cognizant of what their goals are in order to make positive changes in their behavior, moods, and self image.

Well...leadership just got a little bit nerdy... with PSNS and all, but I'm totally okay with that! :).( This weeks reading from Boyatzis, touched on a plethora of many important topics which I feel this class has essentially been aiming towards all along- introspection, reality, and transformation. Boyatzis highlighted in importance of the distinction between a behavior which is assigned such as "You must quit smoking today" and something which one wants to personally change intrinsically "I'm so sick of spending all of my money on cigarettes and risking my health that I want to stop smoking". Reality is, we are much more likely to have success in changing our behaviors, moods and self image only if we really want to change- regardless of what others tell us or want us to do. If I've learned anything in this class, it's definitely the fact that change takes a lot of effort and that introspection in ourselves can be both difficult and correlated to taking a lot of time for growth. Who do I want to be and who am I really? These are pretty deep questions we can't and won't be able to answer overnight. However, overtime with effort and great strides to fill in those "gaps" as Boyatzis would call it, we can grow to be better leaders and people in general by learning from personal and outside feedback as to how we can evolve as leaders.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). "An Overview of Intentional Change from a Leadership Perspective." Journal of Management Development, 25(7), 607-623. doi:10.1108/02621710610678445

This weeks definition: Leadership skills can certainly be both enhanced while in a group, as well as a time for individuals within the group time to reevaluate the importance of commitment and overall meaning of what a true leader should act like. The storming process of groups is both a normal phenomenon, and usually a healthy time to address problems and a time for growth.

So some people are eager to express whether or not they prefer to work in groups. This class is of course is unique in the sense that it's a requirement that we work with a specified group. I personally usually enjoy working with others and wasn't put off by the thought of having a commitment of working with a group. I wrote in a reflection a few weeks ago that I had laughed a little bit when you and Jude were talking about social loathing in groups, but oh boy... I wasn't laughing a 3 weeks into the semester when our groups had formed... or not formed should I say. In this weeks reading from Komives & McMahon the authors specifically touch on the importance and actual research of groups going into a process of Forming, Storming, Norming and Preforming. After what seemed like our group had formed somewhat well as much as we could over the internet, and then just briefly in person, it was clear that the priorities and importance of all of the group members were not shared. In short, for weeks and weeks, even up until recently some of my group members did little to no work that they should have. As frustrating and disappointing as this was in what Klomives & McMahon would call the "storming" phase, I have learned a lot and am actually grateful for the sometimes constant storming phase of this group. With strife and equilibrium within the group, it's motivated myself to step up and take a leadership position to make sure the group can all bounce back together on a collaborative level rather than just my own voice to make sure work is being done, and that those who are responsible for their work take responsibility for it. Seeing social loathing within our group has also brought that nagging voice in my head to say "Never be that person in a group who doesn't do their work!". No one likes or appreciates a slacker or someone who mooches off of others work and expects no consequences or expects to be credited for no work done on their part. Working in groups proves to have an experience unlike working by yourself. You get to see how others act on the dance floor from your balcony and get to learn from the dancing in the long run. Rather than doing a solo dance however, you sometimes have to teach others things to refine the dance as a group, and many times others in the group will teach yourself about things you can do as well to make the dance as graceful as possible for the entire group. This refining of the dance won't always be easy, and others won't always agree and what dance moves are best to make, but in the end with collaboration and cohesiveness, the group can preform well and dance gracefully!

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.

This weeks definition: Leadership not only takes a conscious effort within the leader to take time out of their daily lives to revaluate, but to step back and evaluate how difficult topics such as race and external looks of people can at times harmfully effect the ways in which leaders may lead, and treat others around them. Important topics like race and looks aren't always on the top of everyone's list when it comes to leadership as it can often be overlooked, but with sometimes harmful consequences in return for those who are leaders, and those who are led as well.

Though you ( Colin & Jude) called the first two readings by Gladwell & Tatum, "lost puppies" they were the best lost puppies I could ever find! (Especially Tatum). :) The two readings from Gladwell and Tatum highlighted the importance of digging deep into the touchy topics like race when it comes to evaluating myself as a leader. Of course we all want to assume we're not racist and prejudice of any person who looks any different than we do, has some kind of disability, isn't talk, dark, or handsome, or doesn't have beautiful glowing white skin like many of the pictures we see of the almighty Jesus. (Even Jesus having white skin says a lot doesn't it? I'll save that for another time). Unfortunately, when it comes down to it, every single person has some kind of prejudice and judging tendencies towards others in some way whether that be small or big. Me, Erica Derifield, an American, half black, half Korean kid, certainly thought I would have the very least of prejudices of any kind, right? I was so, so wrong! :O I was eager to see what my results were like on the Harvard Illicit tests assuming that I'd have the perfect neutral stance on race in general. My results were hardly close to perfect. This really taught me that implicit thinking as Gladwell touched on, is freakishly true, and unavoidable, unless we make big strides to see why and where those slicing errors come in, and make even big efforts to ditch those prejudices we make on others. It also made me realize just how much the average person who is white, or can even pass as though they're white (like me), with a lighter skin complexion could really have it's benefits. And on the flip side, those who aren't white or can't pass as white really do have a disadvantage. It's SO important that leaders and non-leaders alike really take time to evaluate what their prejudices come from, why, and most importantly how to change them so that others aren't mistreated or not given the chance they deserve because of our prejudices and judgments made. Please keep these two readings in the class as long as you two teach, they we're great and in my opinion so vital to leaders and non-leaders alike!

Gladwell, M. (2005). "The Warren Harding Error: Why we fall for tall, dark, and handsome men." Blink: The power of thinking without thinking (pp. 72 - 98). New York: Pushkin Enterprises.

Tatum, B. D. (1997). "Defining Racism: Can we talk?" Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? (pp. 3 - 17). New York: Basic Books.

This week's definition: Leadership takes a conscious effort within the leader to step back from the craze of our everyday routines and habitual ways of leadership by stepping back and reflecting on what underlying issues may be highlighted when we as leaders take the time to give thought into what's going on around us. By allowing time to step back and reflect on how we might customarily lead on an day to day basis, leaders are usually both enlightened and more aware of what changes they may need to make, or more mindful of what their weaknesses are when they ask others for honest constructive criticism.
I really enjoyed both of the readings for this week!

This weeks reading by Heifetz & Linsky reminded me in a way of week 5's reading from Lee & King which really highlighted on the importance of leadership being a progressive, fluid variable of change. This week, Heifetz & Linsky showed the importance of how we as human beings (and Americans, really) can get so caught up in our everyday routines of life and modes of leadership as well. If it's something we do all the time, we may not always be so proactive in stepping off of what Heifetz & Linsky would call the "dance floor" or the activity or project on hand. It's easy for all of us to just be so wrapped up in what's going on in the moment, failing to get on the "balcony" by gaining perspective of the situation/task at hand while taking positive interventions that one may not have been able to make without heading to the balcony for a revision. This also reminded me of an article I read months ago in the NY Times "The 'Busy' Trap. Sometimes we get so caught up in being busy and full of appointments and agendas that we miss out on some of the wonderful things in life. (check it out!) In Kegan & Lahey's reading, brought light to my appreciation of constructive criticism. Of course we can self reflect such as what we might do while on the "balcony", but sometimes it's vital that we take the next step and head over to someone else's balcony to see how we act on a day to day basis and our ways of leadership. When we allow ourselves to step back and listen to the honest "720-degree feedback" of co-workers and others who are personally closer in our nuclear realm of family and friends- we are truly able to see what "one big thing" we as leaders need to work on to be better leaders. Constructive criticism is great, and sometimes we need to get off the dance floor and look from the balcony as well as the balconies of others!

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-Brass, Inc.

Kreider, T. (June 30, 2012 ). The 'Busy Trap'. Opinionator, Retrieved from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/the-busy-trap/

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.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). "Identifying Each Person's One Big Thing" (pp. 63 - 67). Boston: Harvard Business Press.

This week's definition: Leadership is certainly not restricted to an individual standpoint, and at many times involves the roles of more than one to make a collaborative effort. When working as a team, it is important to take the time to understand what each group member's strengths and weaknesses are in order to achieve a cohesive working bond. Much like a car, if the gasoline is missing, or a specific gasket isn't installed correctly, the car could easily malfunction with even the slightest inconsistency. Collaboration means we, rather than "me".

This weeks reading " A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook " written by Astin and Astin changed my overall definition and take on the meaning of leadership most of the two readings assigned by highlighting the importance of collaborative leadership roles. When reflecting on my previous views of leadership through our assigned readings many of them in ways have been focused primarily on an individual standpoint. In Astin & Astin's reading, it highlighted the importance of actually taking time within a new group or even a group which individuals have worked together with before, focusing on the different strengths and weaknesses in which each of the group members possess. As well as focusing on strengths and weaknesses within the group, it was also highlighted that commitment and understanding of responsibility for each group member to work collaboratively is also extremely vital. This especially spoke to me personally this week since there has been quite a bit of what Astin & Astin would call "controversy with civility and citizenship" as well as "incongruence" rather than congruence within the group. A few of our group members have not collaborated well and kept their commitment they originally made at the beginning of the semester as planned. To be honest, I sort of thought it was slightly over the top that you, Collin and Jude talked about "social loathing" on such a serious tone. Could people really be that irresponsible and not do their work. And would it really be that important that we would have to address each group member in such an obvious way when people didn't do the work they said they would. Well, I learned that in the end it really is important to establish responsibility of each member and that even if one small area within the group is lacking, it can make for a disastrous and stressful disequilibrium when work is not being done fairly. Though I am very grateful that we learned about equilibrium last week, and have a syllabus to refer back to better deal with these problems. :)

References
Astin, H. S., & Astin, A. W. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook (version III) (pp. 4 - 27). Los Angeles: University of California Los Angeles Higher Education Research Institute.

This week's definition: Leadership takes a person who has the ability to become the chameleon in all and ever changing situations in life. Because life isn't always perfect, and because difficult varying conditions come and go, it is important to have a leader whom is able to adapt to those diverse situations. A strong leader embraces disequilibrium in multifarious situations rather than becoming incapacitated, and in return becomes a better leader because of positive changes and lessons learned throughout the adaptation process.

In this weeks reading "Leadership in a (permanent) crisis." written by Heifetz and Linsky changed my overall definition and take on the meaning of leadership by highlighting the importance of adapting in leadership roles. When reflecting on my previous views of leadership, I suppose I actually thought of a "good leader" as someone who might have been more rigid in their ways of handling situations when things became messy or when moments of "disequilibrium" happened. Wouldn't you want someone who always stuck to what they knew and didn't change up their game plan? Wasn't someone who was strict and unyielding in their ways the strongest leader of them all? Well, it was obvious in Heifetz and Linskys article that a great leader could in many unstable situations become someone who was able transform and convert from their usual ways to put up the fight when things didn't go so well in many situations they faced while in a leadership role. This reading made me be appreciative of those leaders who really do seem to "go with the flow" and still preform well, while still maintaining their morals and beliefs in life that also make them a strong leader. It must not be easy for those who really are used to being rigid and unchanging, but are still able to do their best by pulling together with what they have as resources and the knowledge they know to work in different ways to produce something positive at the end of the day when things go wrong. I hope to keep this particular article in mind and to remember that being flexible, versatile, and adapting can be one of the greatest qualities a leader can have. Like Obama says, "Change is good". :)

References
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). "Leadership in a (permanent) crisis." Harvard Business Review, 87(7), 62-69. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=keh&AN=41997981&site=ehost-livee

This week's definition: Leadership is an ever changing experience that one undergoes throughout life. The leadership process can be extremely effortless and unchallenging when a person decides to be passive and choose to not challenge oneself in the growing process of leadership. It takes both time and much energy to be proactive and involved in the refining and reflection of ones views and beliefs, especially concerning ethical thinking.

Of the two readings for this week, "The Function of Ethics -- and Its Main Impediment." Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning written by Paul & Elder made the most impact on my definition of leadership. The main insight and concept of my leadership definition that changed this week was primarily the importance of ethical thinking. Last week I was in no way, shape, or form including what ethics or ethical thinking might have to do with leadership. However, after reading Paul & Elders article, it very much made me realize how crucial ethical thinking really is. Even more so, the article made me realize how easy and seemingly natural it is for human beings to get caught up in their own very selfish views and ways of thinking. The article made myself reflect on my own views of and made me question "Why do you believe in that?" "When you listen to others views, are you just waiting to defend your view because it's opposite, or are you really listening?". Of course I think many people do get caught up in keeping many of their views and beliefs stagnant- then again why wouldn't you? If you forced yourself to challenge those views and beliefs, wouldn't that mean you weren't certain or confident in the things you believe in? Of course NOT! It's so vital to reconsider and revise why we believe what we do. Reassessing such important topics are not easy to do, they take time, self reflection, and honesty within ourselves, but this process is very important in making sure we're not just going with the flow and believing everything else everyone else does.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). "The Function of Ethics -- and Its Main Impediement." Understanding the Foundations of Ethical Reasoning (pp. 4 - 36). Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

This week's definition: Leadership is an ever changing experience that one undergoes throughout life. Though someone may be born with a natural drive and talent to lead, leaders and quality leadership can also be made and even more importantly, enhanced/refined. Leadership is not a fixed variable, but rather a fluid and dynamic variable.

Of the two readings for this week, "Ground your leadership vision in a personal vision." written by King and Lee made the most impact on my definition of leadership. In the previous week, I never thought of leadership as something that necessarily changed. I suppose I assumed your leadership traits and experience were fixed rather than changing. I thought the reading by Lee and King really helped me look deeper into what made me a good leader, and why I enjoy the things I take leadership in, and why other things I wouldn't enjoy leading as much. Having constructive dialog or reflections with ourselves can be extremely important and valuable. I never thought to write down my day dreams. Wasn't daydreaming a negative doing after all? I was somewhat surprised to see a reoccurring theme within my daydreams regarding goals and aspirations I hope to take on in life. I'm very people oriented, and love the idea of traveling, whereas a job leading others in tasks that aren't people oriented would have me running for the hills! It was refreshing and advantageous to be reminded that most of us have things we can excel in, many things that drive us and make us better leaders; it's time, reflection and introspection we must force ourselves to do in order to see what things in life light our fires to be better leaders. Leadership is not fixed, but rather an ever changing, fluid, growing process.

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-Brass, Inc.

This weeks definition: Leadership is a significant role which an individual is able to take part of, involving someone who has the ability to lead particularly by using their own individual strengths and qualities to help lead, influence and enhance the work of other people.


The ways in which specific individual qualities from a leader are utilized to influence and help others changed between my two definitions. This changed because my initial definition lacked the insight that a leaders innate given qualities can be very important in the outcome of how followers view and respect their leaders. I believe something that was valuable in terms of how I view leadership came from Goleman when he stated "there are six distinct leadership types that appear to have a direct and unique atmosphere of an organization". However, Rath & Conchie bring a vital point when accounting for the fact that many great leaders stick to their innate given qualities without trying to change those qualities and skills into something they aren't naturally good at. To me this is important in realizing that not all leaders can do everything by themselves. Instead it's important to embrace differences in skills and qualities of others to work together to accomplish something great. Multiple leaders are sometimes better than just one leader.

Goleman, Daniel (2000). "Leadership that Gets Results." Harvard Business Review,
78(2), 78-90.
Rath, T. & Conchie, B. (2009). "Understanding why people follow." Strengths based
leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people follow. (pp. 79 - 85). New York: Gallup Press.