Reflections on Rethinking leadership: A New Look at Old Leadership Questions - Book Report/Review Example

?Leadership Journal Diane Ladkin’s Rethinking leadership: A New Look at Old Leadership Questions offers a unique approach to thinking about and discussing leadership. Anyone can simply go to a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word. However, Ladkin is asking the reader to appreciate the reasoning behind the definition. Ladkin makes a very good point when she contrasts the significance of defining leadership and things like bird and fork-lift truck. The bird and the truck are concrete objects. But if you think about the word leadership, it consists of nothing concrete at all. It cannot simply be defined in a book like many other words. I had never thought of looking at the idea of leadership from this perspective but that seems to be Ladkin’s goal for the reader. This then leads to the question of defining a leader. A leader is a person – a thing – so it should naturally be easily definable, right? But if we are viewing leadership as a subjective ‘phenomenon,’ it does not seem possible to define a leader without difficulty. I was taken by surprise when Ladkin referred to leadership as a phenomenon. When I think of the word phenomenon I immediately think of an event or occurrence that is drastically out of the ordinary. Leadership and leaders are not something that is rarely seen, at least from a straightforward definition such as Webster’s ‘ability to lead.’ That really is no kind of definition of leadership. It simply requires a definition of the word leader. Leader is defined as ‘a guiding or directing head…’ With these definitions it can easily be stated that leadership and leaders are a constant presence in all aspects of our lives. Anyone who guides a group to some sort of goal is a leader and is practicing leadership. This hardly seems like a phenomenon. Therefore it is necessary to understand the meanings of the work phenomenon. One listing under the word phenomenon listed in Webster’s English Dictionary reads, ‘a remarkable or exceptional person; prodigy; wonder.’ My preconceived notion of what a leader and leadership are hardly seems to be remarkable or exceptional. Yet Ladkin insists they should be viewed as such. So now I am asking myself to identify what qualities in leaders and leadership fit the definition of phenomenon. I now find myself having to reevaluate my preconceptions of leadership because if I choose to only see it as a simple definition in a book, what point is there in even discussing or learning about leadership. If it is not a phenomenon, why is it important? Why is so much time and resources invested in something that is an ordinary occurrence? Therefore, I am inclined to examine further the circumstances in which a person is viewed as a leader or leadership is observed. I do have one concern before reading further. Ladkin is asking the reader to reformulate questions regarding leadership in order to gain a better understanding of the versatility of the word because ‘[d]epending on the kind of phenomenon leadership is, the way we go about defining it may be altered’ (Ladkin 3). If we can reformulate the question of ‘What is leadership?’, can we not reformulate that new question? A question can always be made more specific. I do not wish to linger on this but it seems that while Ladkin makes a very good argument as to why a philosophical approach to leadership should be taken, one must be cautious of the possibility that an endless philosophical debate will ensue. It seems that Ladkin views phenomenon by emphasizing all of its definitions. She mentions love and justice. The above definition is simply the one that applies to people. However, phenomenon can certainly be applied to the two previous words. They can be impressive and extraordinary, depending on an individual’s definition of them. They are subjective, just as leadership is. But what makes them extraordinary. I believe the point Ladkin is making is that because there is a lack of clarity in the definition of terms such as these and the fact that this in itself does not mean that they do not exist solidifies her argument that they must be viewed as phenomena and therefore studied as such, requiring a philosophical approach. What really interested me at the end of chapter one and the beginning of chapter 2 is the idea that leadership is about the leader and those that he or she leads. One cannot exist without the other, therefore examining and trying to define leadership must involve the study of those that are being led. I find myself agreeing with the argument of Edmund Husserl that ‘the tools of modern science are not equipped to address questions of meaning and significance central to human lives’ (Ladkin 16). If leadership is viewed in a philosophical light, the relationship between leader and those being led must be examined in order to better identify what makes up the characteristics of that particular leader. Examining people is not a quantitative process so modern science cannot be used. Two leaders can possess the same qualities and interact with their followers in similar manners. However, one leader can have positive, beneficial intentions whereas the other is brutal and self-centered and will do anything to achieve his or her goal. Thus, leadership is on one hand a good or positive thing and on the other hand something that can be extremely destructive. Even this simple example shows that placing a specific definition on leadership – even when there are shared qualities among leaders – is problematic. I find the concept of the ‘Lifeworld’ to be one that I can readily agree with. How humans operate in the living world and the consequences and effects of their actions should be the foundation for determining what type of leadership is required in a specific situation. Scientific principles cannot be applied in order to examine leadership or determine how it really affects and interacts with the human world. Based on the cultural context, it is necessary to understand what those who recognize leadership consider to be its phenomenal qualities and characteristics. Without these followers leadership does not exist. While it is nice that Ladkin includes so many examples of looking at the physical world and comparing that to abstract things such as love and leadership, it seems a little repetitive. However, I do accept that this looking at leadership from a philosophical standpoint may be a daunting task for some and it is necessary to include these examples. I hope I am not overlooking something important by feeling these examples are redundant as I read them. What I understand is that leadership is not defined by physical data and information. We can know what the contents of a food are or the structure or a building and the materials used in it but these technical properties cannot be found when describing or defining leadership. Leadership is a human action and response. Humans think and perceive differently. They can agree on things and it is those things that they agree on which can identify the qualities for an adequate leader and establish a relationship between leader and followers to define a particular example of leadership. This will never be a universal example, only the best one for these particular people in this particular time, place, and setting. The only commonality is the ‘collective mobilization towards an explicit or implicitly determined purpose’ (Ladkin 28). The one thing in common with any type of leadership is that there is a common goal or purpose for creating a leader and follower relationship and without that goal, leadership is pointless. People must become involved in what is going on around them in order to help them understand what exactly it is they are seeking leadership for in the first place. This is exactly why we need more theories on leadership. I really enjoyed the example given by Ladkin involving Chris the Royal Air Force officer and the story involving his CO. The point Chris made to his is CO is that a person does not have to be in a position of power in order to provide leadership. He or she must simply be in a position to influence. A person does not need to be the boss, the loudest, the sternest, a heroic figure, or any other characteristic that makes him or her stand out among the rest of the group. While many times these people do provide leadership, those characteristics are not required to do so. Two people who are seen as equals whether at work or socially or in another context can work together towards a common goal with one person acting as a leader based on his or her knowledge and experience with the current circumstances and the other person following, building off the sharing of the experiences. This can still be viewed as an example of leadership. The one with experience is not bossing the other person around or simply ordering him or her to perform specific tasks. He or she is sharing information, allowing the follower to be a part of the completion of the goal, not just a work horse that is ignorant to the situation and blindly follows the leader. The subject of distributed leadership is a very interesting one in that with a particular goal in mind, the group can have multiple leaders. There is not a specific person who provides leadership to the rest of the group. Instead, all members of the group are basically seen as valuable in their own right, based on their own past experiences, wisdom, and knowledge. Depending on step in the progression of goal achievement, those with the most experience in that area are called upon to provide leadership to those who are less experienced. Everyone is valuable. In this type of environment, it seems everyone would feel a sense of purpose and teamwork as well as the respect of their teammates. Not everyone is put in a position to delegate or make decisions but the knowledge he or she possesses is used to make decisions that can are agreed upon by the group. Everybody matters. This leads me to believe that if members of the group are all feeling these things, the task at hand will be completed much more efficiently and precisely based on the ultimate goal. I believe I understand the idea of absences impacting situation but I have trouble following the idea that they influence leadership. Perhaps I just prefer the use of the word invisible to describe those presences that affect leadership but that are not readily seen, such as culture. Ladkin points out that these absences make it hard to study the phenomenon of leadership. If using the example of culture as an absence, I do not believe this makes the study of leadership any more difficult than what has already been discussed. It’s already been established that leadership is subjective and is based on the circumstances surrounding it. Those circumstances would certainly include things such as culture, not just the achievement of a particular goal in a particular setting. If one is looking at leadership in a philosophical manner, it seems hard to find many things that would be considered absent or invisible because it is the non-concrete factors that are important in establishing leadership. The use of the Hurricane Katrina disaster is an excellent example of looking at leadership in a philosophical way. On page forty-nine, Ladkin states that people agree there was no clarity on who should step up and take responsibility for what was going on. Ladkin writes that two years prior to Katrina planning and exercises were undertaken to determine how the city could handle just such a disaster. The results proved true when Katrina finally hit. Unfortunately, improvements were never made to protect the city after the exercises. I agree that this lack of leadership should be considered. Obviously it is too late to tell those officials involved with the disaster in New Orleans but it is important to note that the damage could have been more limited had more active and efficient leadership taken place. All contexts must be taken into consideration in order to determine the best form of leadership. Histories as well as the foreseeable possibilities of the future are just as important as the current context in which a situation arises. When one normally thinks of followers and leaders, there is a distinction or separation between the two. They are not of the same group; like member of separate social groups in high school. This chapter shows that there is a much more significant relationship between leaders and followers. While the leader may possess a position of authority over the followers, in relational leadership it is essential that the leader have a positive relationship with the group in order to provide effective leadership. Context is still extremely important but so are the relationships that the group values. This makes perfect sense. No one wants to work for or with someone who does not appreciate him or her and who fosters a negative relationship. Productivity and morale will decrease and the success of the completion of the goal is compromised. The information provided about Merleau-Ponty is interesting but I find it complicates Ladkin’s arguments. Of course our bodies play an important role in our interactions with others and what we know of the world. However, what each person knows based on his or her physical experiences is not uniform amongst all people. What some people take as a hostile action others may see it is harmless and inconsequential. Some foods taste delicious to some while disgusting to others. Again, everything is subjective. It is complicated enough discussing leadership based on intersubjectivity because not all physical experiences are interpreted the same way. Reversibility makes more sense in that ‘as I perceive, I am also perceived’ (Ladkin 61). This is a perfect example of the relationship between leader and follower. Each perceives the other and it is through mutual recognition that leadership can be successful. Chapter four is full of stories about feeling and what is felt. Yes, these are important things. But one cannot assume that what is felt by one is felt by all. That is why the importance of communication remains. It seems illogical and irresponsible to base an idea of leadership on feelings alone. And perhaps that is not what Ladkin is stating. It just seems that a large emphasis is being put on feelings in this particular chapter with a lack of discussion on the communication of feelings to others. One cannot be selfish in other areas of leadership so one cannot be selfish when it comes to feelings as well. It is certainly okay to use one’s feelings as a basis for ideas and conceptions but it is important to ask others in the group if they have similar perceptions. Continuing without doing so will only hinder progress and weaken leadership. On the surface it seems that charismatic leaders are a great asset to have. People are naturally drawn to them and generally the leader provides an enthusiastic environment and provides positive feedback to followers. Followers are impressed by the charismatic leader and probably want to impress him or her by working harder. There does seem to be an obvious downside to this type of leader, however. What if something happens to the leader? He or she steps down, is replaced, or something worse? This type of leadership was not based on the intermingling of ideas among the group. The person that the followers are all working hard for is suddenly gone. What incentive have they left? It seems that the group dynamic would naturally fall apart because the leadership has broken down, even if the leader is replaced by someone else. Without that original charisma, the outcome of the work will not be as high. This is not to say that charismatic leadership is a bad thing at all and cannot be successful. A charismatic leader will not necessarily have to step down. A person with confidence in this type of position will instill confidence into those around him or her. Charismatic leaders also have a natural ability to successfully communicate. Perhaps the acquired confidence among followers would even provide a foundation for a group style of leadership should the charismatic leader leave. Chapter six identifies the importance of the vision. This seems like an obvious observation to say that a vision for a goal is important. Otherwise, what is the point of gathering a group together to be led towards non-established goal? It seems though that the communication of the vision from leader to followers is just as important as the vision itself. After all, why would the followers work so hard individually and together to achieve a goal that has no personal significance to them? The leader must explain why the goal’s completion is necessary in regards to everyone involved, just as everyone is important in the process of completion. Leaders do not have to constantly be in control and know everything. They must communicate in order to be the most effective. Leadership is definitely necessary in order to lead to an event – a change. I like the idea of creating disruption. This does not mean disruption in the sense of destruction or negative actions. It simply means upsetting the norm established by society. It seems that leaders would be lead change by first understanding what is going on in the current context that requires change in order to benefit those around him or her. This helps establish incentive for followers. The leader would then need to communicate these necessary changes to his or her followers and explain the importance of their success. The confidence, insight, and level communication inspire the followers to carry out the plan developed by the leader or to participate in its development. In order for someone to take up a position as a leader wisely, he or she must first take certain steps in order to have the most success. .Look at history. What has gone on in the past? What worked and did not work? What was ignored and why? These are all essential questions in establishing a plan of action. Then the would-be leader would need to identify those around him or her that would make good followers. This means that lines of communication must be opened up so that all can freely express concerns and ideas and share experiences and wisdom. Charisma helps and provides confidence but so does a solid plan of action and healthy respect for those around. And the leaders can be those amongst the crowd of followers, handing off the responsibility among those with the most experience. Donna Ladkin’s book shows that it is necessary to think of leadership in a philosophical context rather than a defined term. At the end she also emphasizes the role of being a follower instead of a leader. From reading the book, it seems that both roles are equally important. The leader must be aware of talents and experiences among the followers that will be most beneficial to the group by positive communication with everyone. Followers, in turn, must be willing and able to recognize their own abilities and be willing to step forward and provide their expertise when it is needed. What is a leader without followers? Nothing. Therefore, how can one simply define leadership? It is not possible because followers must also be considered. Leaders and followers make up the human factor which can never simply be defined. Therefore, it is not even possible to understand the meaning of leadership without delving into the complexity of the social context of those doing the leading and those being led. Read More