The leader as politician

The two chapters for this week's reading were definitely interesting, one of the chapters I enjoyed the most was Chapter 9 from Bolman and Deal on The Manager as Politician. This is especially true in today's business and even educational environments as various constituencies (higher level administrators/supervisors, government accrediting agencies, parents, community members, etc.) are requesting more accountability and, for lack of a better word, "proof" concerning where their tax and tuition dollars are being used to fund. With the increasing scarcity of resources, especially monetary resources, many tough decisions have been made and may need to be made concerning where funds are directed.

I especially enjoyed the passage stating, "Organizations need 'benevolent politicians' who steer a course between naivete and cynicism ..." (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p.117). When I first read this, I looked at the term 'benevolent politician' as an oxymoron. In today's environment, especially in government, it is hard to find examples or examples that have been widely shared in the media, of elected officials looking beyond their own self-interests. However, one of the questions in this chapter, "Is is possible to be political and still do the right thing?" (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p.117). The key offers four key values to address in resolving dilemmas, which I found useful. I also realized in the political arena, in any position, communication skills are key, especially in setting the agenda and getting support, as well as developing networks and coalitions to advance the cause. I wonder how much of the policial nature of being a leader relates to concepts of relational leadership? I am reading about this theory for my first paper and one of the first articles I read dealt with Leader-Member-Exchanges and Team-Member-Exchanges and how this influences team climate. These are just things that I am pondering as I am getting deeper in the readings.

Trustworthy Leadership Matrix

The Trustworthy Leadership Matrix on page 81 would be a good topic for designing a study on leadership depending on how it's conceptualized. Purpel (2004) states that" ... it is useful to consider the five facets of trust in relation not only to the five constituencies of schools, but also in relation to the five functions of instructional leaders" (p.101). For example, if you looked at trustworthy leaders on a task dimension/functional dimension of leadership, if all five characteristics were high, you'd expect each of the five constituencies to be pulling in the same direction. It would be interesting to see if there is any one or two functions of leadership, visioning, modeling, coaching, managing, or mediating separately or in combination promote more trust than the other. It would be interesting to chart these either with school leaders or university leaders as well and see the number of characteristics displayed. This could be done through observational research or a case study approach in different settings.

The passage I enjoyed the most from this section was that "Trustworthy leadership gets everyone on the same team, pulling in the same direction." (Purpel, 2004, p.108). There is nothing worse when all of your constituencies are pulling in conflicting directions or are confused on where the "ship is sailing." There needs to be significant trust and buy-in not only to the leader, but to the vision and culture a school or university is trying to promote in order for it to be effective and for everyone to move in the same direction.

Measuring Leadership

The readings and the class discussion left me with many questions to ponder regarding leadership. The three chapters and the article on Developing a Leadership Identity gave me a few ideas to base on research if I were to study leadership behavior. From Jim Collins standpoint on researching good to great leaders, he focused on the traits that made individuals level 5 leaders (or as nicely put with the equation on page 32, Humility + Will = Level 5). In Collins' study, good to great leaders are humble, willful, and are willing to do what needs to be done for the good of the company and not themselves. This was echoed in some of our class discussions this evening. Murphy's article talked about asking good questions for others to build a knowledge base, coping with weaknesses, and learning to depend on others. One of the comments I liked in Murphy's article concerning leadership was "knowing when to let go" of a problem and decide on who the best person is to handle it. Kouzes and Posner also talked about role modeling and inspiring a shared vision. The question then becomes, how do you define humble, what would this look like in practice? How can we observe this and record it for measurement? I also look at the ways of trying to study this if you were a social science researcher or ethnographer - going into organizations and see how it is described not only by the leader themselves, but also by others in the organizations. I also wonder who other individuals would describe as leaders. Most of the time we look at leaders as positional leaders, those who hold the title in organizations, but there are others within the organization who can be looked to for leadership as well. Those are all things and aspects of leadership I ponder and think about.

Leaders initiate change by building their knowledge base, knowing what needs to be done, but also involving others in the process of change and getting others to buy into what the needed change is and what the organization is striving to reach.

For the current problems in practice with leadership, I always try to ask the question, if this is what's desired, how do you know it when you see it? Also, what other elements are at work in leadership. Leaders have to contend with forces, economic or political that can sway decisions or items one way or another.

There are other thoughts that I have, which I will post as we go along with class, but that's what I have for now.