This week's definition: A leader needs to be able to responsibly lead with a strong moral compass, be compassionate to his/her follower's needs and serve them, know how to function in collaborative situations to get the best long term results, and be as informed as possible.

My definition has not changed because after this week's readings I have come to the same conclusion. I thought the Sessions article was especially applicable to my existing definition because it discussed how group members collaborated most effectively in our new online/offline worlds, tying into the "know how to function in collaborative situations to get the best long term results,"part best. As discussed in the article, after collaborating online for a little, it's best the group meets in person and then they will become closer and work better together online afterwards, similar to the dynamic I've noticed within my own group. I'm very satisfied with my final definition of leadership because I feel like it encompasses just about every article we've read, and I would classify someone fitting this definition to be a great leader.

Source:

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

This week's definition: A leader needs to be able to responsibly lead with a strong moral compass, be compassionate to his/her follower's needs and serve them, know how to function in collaborative situations to get the best long term results, and be as informed as possible.

I didn't change this week's definition much because everything seemed about right, except I added "to get the best long term results." After reading Boyatzis' article, it might seem counterintuitive to mention the end goal instead of process, as he stressed, but he was insistent on the process to deliver long term results. Reaching a goal is (usually) not about only sustaining results for a short period of time, which is what Boyatzis said was due to an ineffective understanding of the process of change, but once you understand how to work with the process, you yield better results. Since results are one of the only benchmarks to test progress, it would make sense that a good leader gets good results if they follow the proper steps.

Source

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

This week's definition: A leader needs to be able to responsibly lead with a strong moral compass, be compassionate to his/her follower's needs and serve them, know how to function in collaborative situations, and be as informed as possible.

This week I changed up my definition because our readings addressed equality and non-bias in group conditions, as well as the group collaboration process. In our new virtual realms, where we can now "meet" and collaborate in a different way from our traditional processes, so that explains my addition of "know how to function in collaborative situations." By having a sense of anonymity provided through our virtual "shield", we can more effectively focus on people for their strengths, not their stigmas. This also encompasses the process of group work, as outlined by Komives & McMahon: forming, storming, norming, and performing, so it's just another aspect of knowing how to function in collaborative situations.

This week's definition: A leader needs to be able to responsibly lead with a strong moral compass, be compassionate to his/her follower's needs and serve them, and be as informed as possible.

I didn't change this week's definition (save adding a "/she" to make it more gender-neutral) of what makes a good leader because I feel that our readings for this week addressed them. By having a strong moral compass and being compassionate to his/her followers, a good leader can avoid being racist or prejudiced (as much as we can expect out of a fair leader, as we saw people are subconsciously biased). That part of my definition also covers different leadership styles, depending on what is most effective, hierarchical or collaborative. And finally, it also addresses being a good leader, nothing about looking like one.

This week's definition: A leader needs to be able to responsibly lead with a strong moral compass, be compassionate to his follower's needs and serve them, and be as informed as possible.

For this week, I was most impacted by the Time article on Gandhi. It really struck me just how little we know about someone who is such a publicly recognized figure. In order to be a good leader, one must strive to be informed not only for their personal benefit, but for whatever leadership role s/he plays. It's instances like Gandhi, where people don't realize exactly what he stood for, but use this illusion anyway, which change not only our perception of history, but what impact it had. Seemingly harmless, but its impacts on ignorance are far-reaching.

Source: Rushdie, Salman (1998). "Mohandas Ghandi". Time Magazine U.S., Monday, April 13, 1998.

This week's definition: A leader needs to be able to responsibly lead with a strong moral compass, but also be compassionate to his follower's needs and serve them.

I kept the definition the same this week because even though we learned a lot about self-improvement in this week's readings, I think that self-improvement ultimately happens so we can become better leaders and serve the public more effectively. So, by identifying our "one big thing" we can more effectively serve people as understanding human beings, not just autocratic leaders. Also, by going back and "observing from the balcony" we separate ourselves to find better ways to lead, yet again to benefit our followers (and ourselves, but mainly the former). To me, being a leader is much more about serving people than trying to further one's own career, which is why I think that developing oneself into a better leader should have the ultimate goal of serving the people better.

References: 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 of leadership: A leader not only is someone who does his leadership role well, but also doesn't disregard his ethics or commonly held ethics in the process and is good at making tough ethical dilemmas. A good leader also has to make these decisions with longevity and long-lasting success in mind, so fixing deep rooted problems immediately is necessary.

I changed this week's definition to include the need for addressing deep-rooted issues, because as we read this week, it's always important to keep your head in a crisis and have immediate damage control, but also be able to prevent issues from happening again in the future. A long-term view on an organization seems like a foreign concept in our fast-paced, short-term world, but to do a job as a leader justice, you must have the future in mind.

Sources: 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 of leadership: A leader not only is someone who does his leadership role well, but also doesn't disregard his ethics or commonly held ethics in the process and is good at making tough ethical dilemmas.

I kept the definition basically the same because we also examined more ethical articles, and the "right vs right" article particularly stood out to me. This is because most times throughout our lives the tough ethical decisions aren't right vs wrong, they're the ones that have no wrong answer. Not much about my last definition changed except I added "tough" ethical dilemmas to it because I see now that the toughest ones are, as aforementioned, the ones that we make daily which aren't always clear.

Sources: Kidder, R. M. (2003). "Overview: The ethics of right vs. right." How Good People Make Tough Choices (pp. 13 - 29). New York: Simon & Schuster.

This Week's Definition: From this weeks reading, I thought that the "Understanding why People Follow" reading was especially interesting. Instead of asking leaders what they do effectively, which is what the Goleman reading examined, they went straight to leader's source of power - the people. This strongly impacted my original view on leadership because I never really considered the "follower's" opinions. Also in contrast to last week's opinion, being a leader is more than being "willing and able" to lead, it's about the certain qualities and leadership styles you possess, as detailed in the Goleman reading.

Sources:
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.