I respond to this thought - seen here in a slide from Steve Maharey's Think Differently: towards the entrepreneurial university. Alongside this slide Maharey discussed a simple exercise to do with staff or members of an organisation.
Think 3 concentric circles, the outside one has the word what in it, the middle one has how and the core has why. Maharey suggests that often staff are able to answer what and how the organisation does things, but tend to struggle with the why. He emphasises the need to always know (and to pass on thinking, discussion and projection of) the why. His argument is "always know why you do things". That's how "people get it" and that's important. Having your team "know why, is the place to get to as leaders". I couldn't agree more!
This more philosophical approach invites discussion and debate around the core of what the organisation, business or institution does and stands for - its motivation, goals, raison d'etre. It also translates to the teaching situation where, as teachers, we know that students want to know the relevance of a theory, technique or exercise. Relating this to our class sessions has me recall the discussions we had around staff knowing the MIT mission statement, MIT transforms lives and community through learning. See also discussion board - group 3 Nov 29th. For me, knowing the why or the motivation/drive an organisation has at its helm is important: as a follower it helps me contextualise what I'm doing 'on the floor' and support decisions, strategies and shifts that enable achievement of the goal, as a leader it helps me foster development in my area that address closer attainment of the goal. Where I come a bit unstuck though is when direction or strategic planning and its relationship to the why is not clear or discordant.
Referring back to the slide. What is implied here is that holding the position does not necessarily automatically make you a leader. I agree. This has me consider some of the discussions we had in earlier classes around the difference between management and leadership roles - see slide from Stuart Middleton's presentation in earlier blog entry. Some rhetorical questions spring to mind:
How does someone who is newly appointed to a leadership position become a leader?
Is it appropriate to think that only someone who displays leadership qualities already should be appointed to a leadership position?
Do you have to be appointed to a leadership position to lead?
We know that leadership style, reflection and development can be assisted by learning, but does a successful leader have to possess inherent leadership qualities as a beginning point?
Does everyone truly have leadership potential?
Although it might totally contradict what our sessions have covered and read in a fairly outdated mode, I tend to think that there are people whose nature or disposition lends itself to leadership. It's their 'natural game', something that comes at a fundamental level with ease and they find it enjoyable. I consider myself on of those people. That's not to say that there aren't lots of techniques, tricks, strategies to learn and room for growth around leadership, nor that people who don't naturally take up leadership roles in a casual situation can't be good leaders. I can relate these thoughts to when I was first appointed to my current position and my growth as a leader since then. Before I took the position I was already leading informally, staff seeking advice, input, developing collegial supportive relationships. Strangely once I officially was appointed less staff approached me in the first few months. I put this down to a combination of me being a bit too heavy handed at the offset, trying too hard to assert myself alongside a little fear from staff about seeking input from someone who had 'crossed' to management.
Over the last couple of years I have done much reflection and development of how to lead in my position. Managers and structures have changed considerably and with the introduction of a Dean-led structure, the position no longer sits in the school's management team which disappointed me as I initially viewed that as exclusion and a sideways move, lessening my opportunities to affect change and contribute to the faculty's vision - frustrating for a forward thinker. However, with a bit of creative thinking I have now developed strategies to sow seeds and to lead without being present, to subtlety influence and to build with others opportunities to affect developments in thinking around teaching and learning. I have become more noticed a maturing in my leadership capacity, enabling academic and leadership potential in individuals and teams within the School.
This has me recall Kate's discussion around transformative leadership vs transactional - food for thought for my next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment