Since I posted last week on the diversity paradigms, I thought I would reflect on the 5 domains of educational leadership: Leadership, Ethics, Policy, Research, and Diversity.
The lens at which each individual person views life is based on experience, environment, knowledge, and attitude (one's outlook in life). Now being in the educational leadership program I see the value in using the lens of the 5 domains to view how to conceptualize and practically apply the information being learned and synthesized. It is easy to get caught in a rut as Dr. Knoeppel pointed out and just think about the leadership paradigm.
It is nice to see how current and upcoming trends in policy play a vital role in how we view leadership, ethics, research, and diversity. Understanding how to be a leader by making moral and ethical decisions to conduct research by providing sufficient warrants and transparency to understand the world through different view points plays a critical role in my future endeavors and actual survival of the program.
One thing that speaks volumes to me is the idea of not just doing research for the sake of research. An ethical component is needed so that results are not falisfied or misconstrued in order for a researcher to be published or even finish a class in the doctoral program. We have to follow some morals and values in order to contribute to the collective understanding. The interesting thing about this comment is in the servant leadership theory and transformational leadership theory one of the foundations to creating positive relationships is making ethical and moral decisions.
So my challenge to myself is to make sure I continue down this path of approiate and ethicial decision making based on my personal beliefs as well as the institution in which I work.
Showing posts with label EDL900. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EDL900. Show all posts
11.16.2009
11.06.2009
Paradigms for Diversity
Banks (1996) states there are 3 different paradigms:
The discrimination and fairness paradigm (assimilation)--Most people from this paradigm are focues on justice and fairness, equal opportunity for everyone within the organization, and also is focues on laws around equal opportunity. Companies within this paradigm provide mentoring or developmental programs for minorities within their organization (Banks, 1996). Common characteristics in this paradigm is where the company uses a top-down approach with directives which implies structure to control processes. The one draw back I thought was interesting is someone from this paradigm might make the assumption everyone is the same because they think that will help decision making easier.
The access and legitimacy paradigm (differentation)--Organizations want to meke their companies diverse with people because it makes business sense. The company will then be able to reach different peoples and serve customers better which will in turn produce legitmacy to the organization. This paradigm has led to new professional and managerial opportunities for minorities. The main characteristic is increased diversity among consumers, slients, and the labor pool (Banks, 1996). The limitation to this paradigm is the tendency "to emphasize the role of cultural differences in a company without really analyzing those differences to see how they actually affet the work that is done" (p. 276).
The emerging paradigm (intergration)--There is a promotion of equal opportunity as well as acknowledging the value of differences among individuals. So almost a combintation of the above paradigms.
I believe the author writes about these paradigms to argue or convince the reader that everyone's opinion matters. The roles of each individual person are of value to the organization they serve. If organizations are able to listen to those that work for them, and empower the employees to make decisions then trust will be be built. And in return this trust will build the organization to grow but also the individuals of the organization to personally grow. This growth will probably look like individuals valuing one another and the organization.
These same concepts have arisen in the level 5 leader as well as the servant leadership theories (note: probably my two favorites).
The discrimination and fairness paradigm (assimilation)--Most people from this paradigm are focues on justice and fairness, equal opportunity for everyone within the organization, and also is focues on laws around equal opportunity. Companies within this paradigm provide mentoring or developmental programs for minorities within their organization (Banks, 1996). Common characteristics in this paradigm is where the company uses a top-down approach with directives which implies structure to control processes. The one draw back I thought was interesting is someone from this paradigm might make the assumption everyone is the same because they think that will help decision making easier.
The access and legitimacy paradigm (differentation)--Organizations want to meke their companies diverse with people because it makes business sense. The company will then be able to reach different peoples and serve customers better which will in turn produce legitmacy to the organization. This paradigm has led to new professional and managerial opportunities for minorities. The main characteristic is increased diversity among consumers, slients, and the labor pool (Banks, 1996). The limitation to this paradigm is the tendency "to emphasize the role of cultural differences in a company without really analyzing those differences to see how they actually affet the work that is done" (p. 276).
The emerging paradigm (intergration)--There is a promotion of equal opportunity as well as acknowledging the value of differences among individuals. So almost a combintation of the above paradigms.
I believe the author writes about these paradigms to argue or convince the reader that everyone's opinion matters. The roles of each individual person are of value to the organization they serve. If organizations are able to listen to those that work for them, and empower the employees to make decisions then trust will be be built. And in return this trust will build the organization to grow but also the individuals of the organization to personally grow. This growth will probably look like individuals valuing one another and the organization.
These same concepts have arisen in the level 5 leader as well as the servant leadership theories (note: probably my two favorites).
10.23.2009
Eight Roles of Symobolic Leaders
It is important for administrators, faculty, and students to understand the symobolic nature of leadership so that we can make sure what is being said or done matches the perceptions. Reviewing the different roles opened my eyes to make me think about my actions and words and how others might perceive me in my role as an Area Coordinator. The eight roles include: historian, Anthropological sleuth, visionary, symbol, potter, poet, actor, and healer (Barth, 2001).
In reflecting upon my actions as a leader, my perception of myself is I am probably a potter, visionary, and symbol. As an AC I really try to help form the department to focus on the mission and goals of the department. All that I do I try to give purpose for me personally as well as for the organization as a whole. It amazes me how sometimes I see my directing or forming is guided by the unwritten policies of the department. The doing is different than the words written down.
The pieces are falling into place of the understanding that the way an office is arranged, words written in a mission statement, or even a holiday party can say something without meaning what is said by the event. This is a crucial point to understand as leaders on a college campus because the difference between helping and maybe hurting someone could be something symbolic.
In reflecting upon my actions as a leader, my perception of myself is I am probably a potter, visionary, and symbol. As an AC I really try to help form the department to focus on the mission and goals of the department. All that I do I try to give purpose for me personally as well as for the organization as a whole. It amazes me how sometimes I see my directing or forming is guided by the unwritten policies of the department. The doing is different than the words written down.
The pieces are falling into place of the understanding that the way an office is arranged, words written in a mission statement, or even a holiday party can say something without meaning what is said by the event. This is a crucial point to understand as leaders on a college campus because the difference between helping and maybe hurting someone could be something symbolic.
10.14.2009
Leadership Styles
This post is a little late this week because Emily and I have been in Williamsburg at a conference.
This week I am going to discuss several different styles of leadership.
1. Coercive--the leader demands compliance.
2. Authoritative--the leader moblizes people toward a vision.
3. Afflitative--the leader creates harmony and builds emotional bonds.
4. Democratic--the leader forges consensus through participation.
5. Pacesetting--the leader sets high standards for performance.
6. Coaching--the leader develops people for the future.
These styles and defintions were taken from the book we are using for class Educational Leadership the 2nd edition from the chapter called Understanding Change by Fullan.
I would use each one of these depending on the situation in which I am given. I use afflitative and coaching the most. These are natrual talents or strengths which I try to work on every day. I try to use both of these to build trust when I am talking with students and colleages. I also think it is important to remember with coaching even baby steps in the learning process are critical. I would be coercive if I just need people to get a small task done such as turning in one paperwork form. I do believe if you are coercive all the time this will hurt the change process. Authoritative is important when trying to get an organization on board with the future plan or vision. I would like to be more of a pacesetter in that I believe this style can produce results at a higher level because it pushes people past what they think they are capable of accomplishing.
I believe each one of these can help or hurt an organization depending on how it is perceived by those with who I work. Coercive and Authoritiative tend to be negative in my mind because most of the time when I use them it is me trying to use force or power to get people to do their jobs. The other for I believe lead to an environment of trust and respect where communication and results blend well together.
This week I am going to discuss several different styles of leadership.
1. Coercive--the leader demands compliance.
2. Authoritative--the leader moblizes people toward a vision.
3. Afflitative--the leader creates harmony and builds emotional bonds.
4. Democratic--the leader forges consensus through participation.
5. Pacesetting--the leader sets high standards for performance.
6. Coaching--the leader develops people for the future.
These styles and defintions were taken from the book we are using for class Educational Leadership the 2nd edition from the chapter called Understanding Change by Fullan.
I would use each one of these depending on the situation in which I am given. I use afflitative and coaching the most. These are natrual talents or strengths which I try to work on every day. I try to use both of these to build trust when I am talking with students and colleages. I also think it is important to remember with coaching even baby steps in the learning process are critical. I would be coercive if I just need people to get a small task done such as turning in one paperwork form. I do believe if you are coercive all the time this will hurt the change process. Authoritative is important when trying to get an organization on board with the future plan or vision. I would like to be more of a pacesetter in that I believe this style can produce results at a higher level because it pushes people past what they think they are capable of accomplishing.
I believe each one of these can help or hurt an organization depending on how it is perceived by those with who I work. Coercive and Authoritiative tend to be negative in my mind because most of the time when I use them it is me trying to use force or power to get people to do their jobs. The other for I believe lead to an environment of trust and respect where communication and results blend well together.
10.03.2009
What do you stand for?
1. How do I define my role as a leader?
I define my role of a leader as a person who has the best interest of the organization and people with whom I work to be a top priority in every decision I make. I enjoy listening to the people with whom I work so that the team can make decisions for the common good of all people. As you saw from one of my post before I would argue I am a relational leader who thrives on having human contact. I am ardent in making sure I provide an opportunity for every person to have input so that buy-in to departmental goals are a shared task by all people in the organization.
2. What inspires the best in staff?
A leader who will get into the trenches. A leader who will walk the talk. A leader that gives credit to those people with whom they work is another key characteristic I believe inspires staff. Confidence is another characteristic that is needed to help inspire a group of people. Finally, I believe relationship building inspires the best staff because then the staff know something about each other and the environment created is one of trust (when done correctly).
3. What are my strengths?
Harmony--I like for everyone to get along and try to find common ground between all people I work with.
Responsibility--I tell people that I am going to do something and I do it. No if ands or buts.
Includer--I try to make sure I get everyone involved in what I am doing. I try to create opportunities to utilize everyone.
Developer--Small steps of growth in myself and others are accomplishments for me. This is what I try to do on a daily basis.
Belief--If i do not believe it I will not say it or do it.
I define my role of a leader as a person who has the best interest of the organization and people with whom I work to be a top priority in every decision I make. I enjoy listening to the people with whom I work so that the team can make decisions for the common good of all people. As you saw from one of my post before I would argue I am a relational leader who thrives on having human contact. I am ardent in making sure I provide an opportunity for every person to have input so that buy-in to departmental goals are a shared task by all people in the organization.
2. What inspires the best in staff?
A leader who will get into the trenches. A leader who will walk the talk. A leader that gives credit to those people with whom they work is another key characteristic I believe inspires staff. Confidence is another characteristic that is needed to help inspire a group of people. Finally, I believe relationship building inspires the best staff because then the staff know something about each other and the environment created is one of trust (when done correctly).
3. What are my strengths?
Harmony--I like for everyone to get along and try to find common ground between all people I work with.
Responsibility--I tell people that I am going to do something and I do it. No if ands or buts.
Includer--I try to make sure I get everyone involved in what I am doing. I try to create opportunities to utilize everyone.
Developer--Small steps of growth in myself and others are accomplishments for me. This is what I try to do on a daily basis.
Belief--If i do not believe it I will not say it or do it.
9.25.2009
Trustworthy Leadership Matrix
The questions I would like to address this week are: functions of leadership, facets of trust, constituents of school. I wonder how these three elements interact to impact change in schools. How could you design a study using these three components?
I would argue change would start when the constituents of the institution realize they can impact the environment around them through the facets of trust as well as functions of leadership. As I talked with Dr. Knoeppel today, I continue to realize I have no clue what I am doing when it comes to design. So I love this question because the answer I am about to give could be totally wrong.
For the environment I am in I would want to know how Benevolence, honesty, Openness, realiability, and competence are related to the visioning, modeling, coaching, managing, and mediating by all the consitutents. As you can see this study would probably takes years and years.
So I would want to know how administrators impact change through vision and modeling and measuring whether benevolence, honesty, and competence play a factor in this change. I would ask questions to students, parents, and administrators to gain insight into these trust facets to see how they impact the change on a campus.
I would argue the more of the trust factors one utilizes in all areas of leadership with all 5 constituents will lead to an environment where change is perceived as positive and beneficial to the community and university. Who ever is responsible at the top for the leadership will have the most impact to set the tone for the university.
Now I know I answered these questions backwards but I hope this gives you insight into how I would use the Trustworthy Leadership matrix.
I would argue change would start when the constituents of the institution realize they can impact the environment around them through the facets of trust as well as functions of leadership. As I talked with Dr. Knoeppel today, I continue to realize I have no clue what I am doing when it comes to design. So I love this question because the answer I am about to give could be totally wrong.
For the environment I am in I would want to know how Benevolence, honesty, Openness, realiability, and competence are related to the visioning, modeling, coaching, managing, and mediating by all the consitutents. As you can see this study would probably takes years and years.
So I would want to know how administrators impact change through vision and modeling and measuring whether benevolence, honesty, and competence play a factor in this change. I would ask questions to students, parents, and administrators to gain insight into these trust facets to see how they impact the change on a campus.
I would argue the more of the trust factors one utilizes in all areas of leadership with all 5 constituents will lead to an environment where change is perceived as positive and beneficial to the community and university. Who ever is responsible at the top for the leadership will have the most impact to set the tone for the university.
Now I know I answered these questions backwards but I hope this gives you insight into how I would use the Trustworthy Leadership matrix.
9.15.2009
Conceptualizing Leadership
NOTE: for those of you in my class I will label each one of my post under the category EDL 900 to make access to reading our family blog a little easier for you.
So this is my start at blogging about what I think of leadership and how it fits into my research agenda. We had several questions proposed to answer. Here are the one's I have chosen.
Does this give you a hint of how to conceptualize the leader and the impact of the leader?How could you use that knowledge to start thinking about a research question?
After the readings from this past week I have really been pondering the concepts of incorporating both humility and unwavering resolve in to this idea of leadership. It is hard to put into words the definition of leadership. I do believe leadership is not about the "great man" theory which in short states the leader is always right and should make all the decisions and everyone they work with is underneath them. In the chat we had in AET zone the one thing I said all the articles had in common was change. I now take that answer back because upon further reflection I realize the underlying theme to all the articles is leadership is based around created relationships. The success or failure of a leader depends upon the relationships one creates with those people the leader works with. Another concept I found important to be a part of leadership is the idea of being an example or "modeling the way". Taking this concept one step further I would argue implies sometimes a leader has to be a follower. And in this follower roles is being a paragon of a relational leader.
Two other concepts I believe to be important is empowering with those you work with and encouraging the heart of those you work with. See how this all fits into relationships. I believe both of these concepts provide the leader with the opportunity to develop trust and respect. These to characteristics being the foundation of a healthy relationship. As you can see the word relationship continues to arise in my discussion of leadership. This leads my reflection back to the beginning of my post. The "great man theory" or being a lion is not all leadership is about. To quote Jerome Murphy: "To be a lion, one must first be a lamb" (pg. 58).
So now to the discussion about my research topic. I am working with the concepts of living learning programs specially looking at Resident Assistants and Program Assistants. I am interested in seeing how these two positions provide leadership to the student involved in living learning programs. Right now I am struggling with the design part of this project. I am not sure if I want to look at qualities of the people in these positions or to find out from the residents living in these communities if they are more engaged and successful because of the interactions they have with these two positions. At this point, I am not sure where else to go with this. But check back in a couple of weeks because I have lined up several meetings with professors to continue to discuss this idea and figure out a way of how to measure these aspects in the LLCs.
Anyone feel free to give me feedback through the comments. Any help is much appreciated.
So this is my start at blogging about what I think of leadership and how it fits into my research agenda. We had several questions proposed to answer. Here are the one's I have chosen.
Does this give you a hint of how to conceptualize the leader and the impact of the leader?How could you use that knowledge to start thinking about a research question?
After the readings from this past week I have really been pondering the concepts of incorporating both humility and unwavering resolve in to this idea of leadership. It is hard to put into words the definition of leadership. I do believe leadership is not about the "great man" theory which in short states the leader is always right and should make all the decisions and everyone they work with is underneath them. In the chat we had in AET zone the one thing I said all the articles had in common was change. I now take that answer back because upon further reflection I realize the underlying theme to all the articles is leadership is based around created relationships. The success or failure of a leader depends upon the relationships one creates with those people the leader works with. Another concept I found important to be a part of leadership is the idea of being an example or "modeling the way". Taking this concept one step further I would argue implies sometimes a leader has to be a follower. And in this follower roles is being a paragon of a relational leader.
Two other concepts I believe to be important is empowering with those you work with and encouraging the heart of those you work with. See how this all fits into relationships. I believe both of these concepts provide the leader with the opportunity to develop trust and respect. These to characteristics being the foundation of a healthy relationship. As you can see the word relationship continues to arise in my discussion of leadership. This leads my reflection back to the beginning of my post. The "great man theory" or being a lion is not all leadership is about. To quote Jerome Murphy: "To be a lion, one must first be a lamb" (pg. 58).
So now to the discussion about my research topic. I am working with the concepts of living learning programs specially looking at Resident Assistants and Program Assistants. I am interested in seeing how these two positions provide leadership to the student involved in living learning programs. Right now I am struggling with the design part of this project. I am not sure if I want to look at qualities of the people in these positions or to find out from the residents living in these communities if they are more engaged and successful because of the interactions they have with these two positions. At this point, I am not sure where else to go with this. But check back in a couple of weeks because I have lined up several meetings with professors to continue to discuss this idea and figure out a way of how to measure these aspects in the LLCs.
Anyone feel free to give me feedback through the comments. Any help is much appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)