Jazz and Shifting Nature of Leadership
Reflecting on the perfect way of controlling people, I realized that the very phrase “controlling people” is a wrong approach to conceptualizing an expectation of relative order that is usually shared by the members within the same organization. Some people may prefer working in chaos; however, it is not a conventional method for organizing teamwork. I understood that the notion of control loses its positions due to the fact that business enterprises start to realize that control has very little or no value in itself. It is absolutely necessary for accountability and a proper working rhythm, basically, for obtaining and checking the results. I believe that employees with a solid work ethic need a clear understanding of why these or those rules exist rather than control the situation. However, this approach to interpreting the changes may be also caused by a generational feature.
Furthermore, in numerous places on the web I saw that currently workers do not have loyalty at their work placements. Some people may attribute this trend to globalization and greater mobility of people and information, while others tend to relate it to the features inherent in the generation of millenials. To my way of thinking, the lack of loyalty towards certain organization is worth acknowledging, because this happens when we gain the chance to make our concept of loyalty in business more human-oriented.
Proposing Leadership – 10 propositions
Considering the ten propositions that may help become an energy-giver and a stress-absorber, I faced some difficulties with Proposition 5 which is “Thou shalt be authentic.” To begin with, detailed knowledge of oneself is not only a challenging but also a controversial matter. We should be alert and attentive enough to spot the moment when his/her current answer to the question “Who and what are you?” stops fitting inner and outer contexts. Human being is not a static object with the fixed set of characteristics. In the best scenario, we spend most of the 100,000 hours of our careers evolving. Thus, knowing oneself is not a state, but rather the process of self-observation, self-acceptance, and self-correction.
I observed a small acknowledgement of my way to unpack “authenticity” by means of analyzing other propositions. It perfectly correlates with the idea of excellent situation-sensing skills, essentially meaning the same thing but directed toward the inner nature of one’s personality. I feel intellectually inspired with this interpretation: according to my perception, authentic leader will be able to detect the danger of total exhaustion both in himself/herself and in his/her colleagues. What is more, he/she will probably feel comfortable even being in the center of attention and will not be paralyzed by own shortcomings.
Another challenging part of this module was the case of “wanting but killing leadership paradox.” Considering our high expectation of order and accountability means that we tend to turn processes into policies or almost rituals. That indicates unquestioned repetition of the same actions over and over again, sometimes even in the risk management departments. Good leadership should encourage and celebrate the changes and experiments within the frame of calculated risks.
Frequently, people assume that being a leader is a gift that one receives congenitally; others believe that if you see the finish line and do not notice obstacles, you will become a leader eventually on condition that you work hard enough. I identify the trait theory versus behavior theory combat as a problem. The first appears to be more popular with wide circles; yet the second is sufficiently supported by research. The most problematic point with the aforementioned theories is that they both carry an ideological message. Assuming that the trait theory is correct, one must recognize that some people (or the overwhelming majority of them) can never become a leader however hard they try. That is to say that we arrive at a kind of inborn aristocracy. If that is true that behavior theory is reasonably accurate (which it probably is), a prudent person would agree that anyone with a strong motivation and a sustained effort is a potential leader. Here we have a hidden message of meritocracy: those worthy will achieve. However, it automatically indicates (in implied message, not in the theory) that those who did not achieve are not worthy, but that is simply not how life works; aspeople capable of leading do not lead. What I am struggling to propose here is to stop searching for a single explanation but rather use a wide array of explanations: one becomes a chief person when he/she uses inborn talents and diligently works to develop. As far as I am concerned, that is a much more rewarding philosophy that relieves one from stress if failure to be a leader becomes a burden of responsibility (let us face it: not everything depends on us).
Nowadays, the rush-hour situations require proper decisions to be made very fast and smartly. The leader should persuade people through his or her executive judgments as to gain the attention of the audience and control the atmosphere. The important thing I comprehended is that the communication should not complicate the situation by typical mistakes during the process of decision-making. Even the best manager may be subjected to illusion of overestimating the impact on the group. For this reason various judgmental strategies are to be concerned with and relied on. When facing a risky choice, as I understood, one has to preserve the belief that the situation is solvable and has realistic remedies. The group should be largely involved in the action, in my view, because the real stimulation happens when all biases and fallacies are considered and avoided. The decision must not be based on the self-awareness of the leader but on managing others to be aware of their aims and gains in case of the successful solution of the problem. With comprehension of the complexity of possible quantities in the set of calculations, one can recognize the patterns with the help of which the system is examined. Nonetheless, this does not deter us from formalizing and generalizing the information that we share in the group. Many assume that every planning will be prepared by itself, although everyone should be really unanimous in the decision-making process, so that the result would the same for everyone. At least, I managed to gain the feeling of the environment in which such issues are to be solved.
Notwithstanding the fact that human beings evolved with cognitive architecture that includes elements that were useful at early days of humanity, they might be regarded as flaws nowadays. We use mental models all the time because that is an efficient way to shorten calculations and remain energy-saving to some extent. All of us have our own tried and reliable methods for doing things and we often ignore a change of context that consequently requires a change in our judgments and behavior, thus, we miss important lessons and opportunities. While the p