Now that Aug 22 is over, done with assignment 1, assignment 2 deadline is exactly 1 month from today... This assignment asks that we compare "leadership" before and after we have gone through this unit... in 4000 words! Some may think this is challenging, but technically this is chicken feet! With lots to spare too! Let's take the longer version "leadership", we scramble it and compute its permutation (or "roll" for 4D pundits). So the number of ways in which "leadership" can be re-arranged is:
l e a d e r s h i p, l e a d e r s h p i, l e a d e r s i h p, ..., p i h s r e d a e l = n! = 3628800
See, since I only need 4000, I can lease out the remaining 3624800! Ok ok, I know I'm talking nonsence... but this is what "leadership" has done to me!
On a serious note, as I talked about "erosion of leadership" in my previous post, I shall not repeat those. Before I did this unit, leadership" was largely taken for granted based on its generally accepted meaning. Leadership style, leader behaviour etc were like textbook answers. As long as we learn and practise those styles and behaviour, we will be closer to exhibiting good leadership. Now that I am in the middle of this unit, it became apparent that our understanding of leadership may have been overly one-sided. In other words, the focus and practise of leadership has been entirely leader-centric. Indeed, a significant proportion of leadership research are leader-centric.
A number of scholars however, argued that by being leader-centric, we may have unknowingly omitted a most important paradigm to better our understanding of leadership; the views of followers. I think there is much to be discovered if we shift our paradigm to look at leaders from the vantage point of followers. Afterall, whether or not a leader is a good or a bad one depends on the perception of followers (or potential ones). Since leaders do not only attract followers, they also attract enemies too. So no matter how agile a leader is in exhibiting the best style and behaviour to best suit a given situation, not everyone perceive them the same way; some love 'em, some hate 'em.
For now, this perhaps will be my entree into assignment 2... definitely not "pihsredael".
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
When the "erosion of leadership" has happened...
It's 2 more days to my assignment due date. Pressure? Yes... Panick? Yes... Disillusioned? Certainly!!! Disillusioned not because I did scrabby work, but as a result of having done in depth review of some leadership literature. There are 3 reasons for my disillusionment, let me explain...
Firstly, whether I study leadership or not does not make any significant difference to the way I see things. The incredible amount of time spent reviewing those literature, coupled with a lot of self-doubt, did little more than what we already know without studying it. Indeed there were valuable learning in the form of new nomenclature and vocabulary, but one who doesn't study it will likely have a more positive attitude toward leadership than one who did.
Secondly, most of these literature used unbelievable amounts of outer-planet jargons to convey a simple idea. It is like reading Chinese written in ancient prose in the 21st century, for example: "知知为知知， 不知为不知， 是智也." The use of such prose in leadership literature appears to be an attempt to obscure the shallowness of an argument but instead seek to elevate it to a degree that fits the communicative norms of PhDs and Professors. "... naturalistic coherentism, rather than a priori, as was the case in hypothetico-deductivism..." (Lakomski, 1999) I almost swallowed my tongue reading this! For novice readers, I warn you to stay away before you begin to doubt your own language ability!
Thirdly, and most importantly, the promiscuous use of "leadership" and "leader" in practice today appears to be manifested from the work of leadership scholars through years of dubious definitions and assumptions. Its like casually calling Zinedine Zidane a "great" footballer just because he controls the ball better than anyone else on earth. If a CEO reward you when you perform, and punish you when you fail, how different is he to a manager? Yet everyone unanimously label him a "leader" that has "leadership" even if he kills to bring in revenue. This is what I call the "erosion of leadership"; the spirit of leadership has eroded since time immemorial.
After all the reading, I cannot figure out how "leadership" and "management" differ, neither can I distinguish a "leadership" theory from a "management" one. No wonder "leadership" has been casually bestowed upon anyone with authority over a group of people, this is certainly not what Confucius (551 to 479BC) meant when "君子" is a person with "an emergent quality" who "radiates and makes others want to follow, based on the respect and trust [he] generates." (Fernandez, 2004)
I don't think I am qualified to say this, but I still have to say it... leadership research needs an overhaul!
Firstly, whether I study leadership or not does not make any significant difference to the way I see things. The incredible amount of time spent reviewing those literature, coupled with a lot of self-doubt, did little more than what we already know without studying it. Indeed there were valuable learning in the form of new nomenclature and vocabulary, but one who doesn't study it will likely have a more positive attitude toward leadership than one who did.
Secondly, most of these literature used unbelievable amounts of outer-planet jargons to convey a simple idea. It is like reading Chinese written in ancient prose in the 21st century, for example: "知知为知知， 不知为不知， 是智也." The use of such prose in leadership literature appears to be an attempt to obscure the shallowness of an argument but instead seek to elevate it to a degree that fits the communicative norms of PhDs and Professors. "... naturalistic coherentism, rather than a priori, as was the case in hypothetico-deductivism..." (Lakomski, 1999) I almost swallowed my tongue reading this! For novice readers, I warn you to stay away before you begin to doubt your own language ability!
Thirdly, and most importantly, the promiscuous use of "leadership" and "leader" in practice today appears to be manifested from the work of leadership scholars through years of dubious definitions and assumptions. Its like casually calling Zinedine Zidane a "great" footballer just because he controls the ball better than anyone else on earth. If a CEO reward you when you perform, and punish you when you fail, how different is he to a manager? Yet everyone unanimously label him a "leader" that has "leadership" even if he kills to bring in revenue. This is what I call the "erosion of leadership"; the spirit of leadership has eroded since time immemorial.
After all the reading, I cannot figure out how "leadership" and "management" differ, neither can I distinguish a "leadership" theory from a "management" one. No wonder "leadership" has been casually bestowed upon anyone with authority over a group of people, this is certainly not what Confucius (551 to 479BC) meant when "君子" is a person with "an emergent quality" who "radiates and makes others want to follow, based on the respect and trust [he] generates." (Fernandez, 2004)
I don't think I am qualified to say this, but I still have to say it... leadership research needs an overhaul!
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
When we find it easier to beat ourselves up...
In a local newspaper today, I read with disbelieve the way we scrutinize ourselves with things that are as trivial as pronunciation. At a time where the other parts of the world is plugged by war, poverty, natural disasters and terrorism, we sit in the comfort of our home offering nothing but splitting our own hair.
How wrong can Singaporeans pronounce the word "Singapore"? Whether we choose to pronounce it as "Sing-Ga-Por" or "Sing-Nga-Por" with varying degree of stress on each syllable do not make us any more or less Singaporean. Similarly, being able to pronounce "Carrefour" in perfect French intonation does not make one look more French than another. If the mere pronunciation of "Deepavali" can make one enjoy the festival any more or less, Singapore is heading right down memories' lane in no time. The mere fact that a non-Chinese can vividly say "Gong Xi Fa Cai" is reason enough for a standing ovation, but some choose to pay no compliment even with perfect Confucius-style phonetics.
While we have been relatively free from worldly sufferings, we either contribute or reflect on those unfortunate events experienced by others and learn from it. If need be, we debate about things that matter, for those that matter. Engaging in hair-splitting commentaries do no one any good, but will instead portray this nation as ignorant and childish.
What is seriously lacking in this country is a culture of positiveness and encouragement. This reminds me of a local movie by Jack Neo "I not stupid too" that I again watched on the plane on my way back from Hanoi a few days ago. Amidst the tears and laughter, the key learning point of this movie is for us to look at one's virtue rather than be clouded by one's failure. How often do we pretentiously preface our comments with an upbeat only to chew it up with a "but"?
You look good in this dress, but... (only if you are 1 size smaller!)
You did well in your job, but... (you are still lousy in sucking up to me!)
This dish tastes good, but... (only because I am having a flu!)
All these sounds familiar? Some say keep your "buts" (butts) out of my face! So, maybe we should really keep some of our opinions to ourselves, because our opinions usually does nothing more than killing someone else's morale however well intended it may be.
How wrong can Singaporeans pronounce the word "Singapore"? Whether we choose to pronounce it as "Sing-Ga-Por" or "Sing-Nga-Por" with varying degree of stress on each syllable do not make us any more or less Singaporean. Similarly, being able to pronounce "Carrefour" in perfect French intonation does not make one look more French than another. If the mere pronunciation of "Deepavali" can make one enjoy the festival any more or less, Singapore is heading right down memories' lane in no time. The mere fact that a non-Chinese can vividly say "Gong Xi Fa Cai" is reason enough for a standing ovation, but some choose to pay no compliment even with perfect Confucius-style phonetics.
While we have been relatively free from worldly sufferings, we either contribute or reflect on those unfortunate events experienced by others and learn from it. If need be, we debate about things that matter, for those that matter. Engaging in hair-splitting commentaries do no one any good, but will instead portray this nation as ignorant and childish.
What is seriously lacking in this country is a culture of positiveness and encouragement. This reminds me of a local movie by Jack Neo "I not stupid too" that I again watched on the plane on my way back from Hanoi a few days ago. Amidst the tears and laughter, the key learning point of this movie is for us to look at one's virtue rather than be clouded by one's failure. How often do we pretentiously preface our comments with an upbeat only to chew it up with a "but"?
You look good in this dress, but... (only if you are 1 size smaller!)
You did well in your job, but... (you are still lousy in sucking up to me!)
This dish tastes good, but... (only because I am having a flu!)
All these sounds familiar? Some say keep your "buts" (butts) out of my face! So, maybe we should really keep some of our opinions to ourselves, because our opinions usually does nothing more than killing someone else's morale however well intended it may be.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
When management and leadership are the same...
Over the last few decades, the scholarly world has spent great amount of time debating what leadership is, on how it should be defined, on what it entails, and on arguments that leadership and management is not the same thing (eg. Barker, Meindl, Alvesson... just to name a few). This is where I find it hard to understand, because the real world out there spends more time doing real work than engaging in such hair-splitting commentaries.
Management or leadership, more often than not is a function of the same person. In other words no manager can get away from the expectation of being a leader, similarly no leader can be expected not to manage some things. Perhaps only a handful out of billions of people are blessed with the luxury of having only to lead and not manage, no action but talk only. But the larger world out there sees management and leadership synonymously.
Some says: "Managers do the things right, leaders do the right things." But is it really the case? Are they mutually exclusive? In addition, this saying is fundamentally flawed because it seems to recognize only two kinds of people in this world, managers and leaders. Since many in this world either do things the right way, or do the right kind of things, does it then mean everyone is either a manager or a leader? If every human can simply be classified as either a manager or a leader, then we risk trivializing management and leadership studies, why then do scholars spend so much time arguing over their differences?
Supposing scholars can agree to a distinct difference between the two, developed some intellectually intriguing model of management and leadership, we also should create a new kind of drug such that when consumed, would allow one to switch personality and mental state at will in order to effectively get into one's management or leadership role at any given point of time. If personality traits are so deeply embedded in one's actions and behaviour, how does one act and behave differently when the situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act? Perhaps even prior to this, does a person consciously figure out if a situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act in the first place? More often than not, such responses are highly instinctive and completely subconscious. Managerial and leadership skills are tightly fused, separating them is as hard as ridding seeds from apples without cutting, and utilization of these skills are often as a whole rather than as parts; no one buys un-cut apples without seeds, do you? Some may argue that before eating it, we can cut and remove the seeds, analogous to removing managerial skills from a person. But until such time we find a suitable psychological knife to cut up a person's mental state, managerial and leadership skills remain fused as one.
So, where do we go from here? Management and leadership studies should be as one. Stop seeing them as different, study them together. Look at how each can complement the other to be effective, and vice versa. This I call it the Managerial-leader, or Leadership-manager.
Management or leadership, more often than not is a function of the same person. In other words no manager can get away from the expectation of being a leader, similarly no leader can be expected not to manage some things. Perhaps only a handful out of billions of people are blessed with the luxury of having only to lead and not manage, no action but talk only. But the larger world out there sees management and leadership synonymously.
Some says: "Managers do the things right, leaders do the right things." But is it really the case? Are they mutually exclusive? In addition, this saying is fundamentally flawed because it seems to recognize only two kinds of people in this world, managers and leaders. Since many in this world either do things the right way, or do the right kind of things, does it then mean everyone is either a manager or a leader? If every human can simply be classified as either a manager or a leader, then we risk trivializing management and leadership studies, why then do scholars spend so much time arguing over their differences?
Supposing scholars can agree to a distinct difference between the two, developed some intellectually intriguing model of management and leadership, we also should create a new kind of drug such that when consumed, would allow one to switch personality and mental state at will in order to effectively get into one's management or leadership role at any given point of time. If personality traits are so deeply embedded in one's actions and behaviour, how does one act and behave differently when the situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act? Perhaps even prior to this, does a person consciously figure out if a situation calls for a managerial or a leadership act in the first place? More often than not, such responses are highly instinctive and completely subconscious. Managerial and leadership skills are tightly fused, separating them is as hard as ridding seeds from apples without cutting, and utilization of these skills are often as a whole rather than as parts; no one buys un-cut apples without seeds, do you? Some may argue that before eating it, we can cut and remove the seeds, analogous to removing managerial skills from a person. But until such time we find a suitable psychological knife to cut up a person's mental state, managerial and leadership skills remain fused as one.
So, where do we go from here? Management and leadership studies should be as one. Stop seeing them as different, study them together. Look at how each can complement the other to be effective, and vice versa. This I call it the Managerial-leader, or Leadership-manager.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
