![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Leadership
Jan. 24th, 2013 10:34 amI've been thinking on and off about leadership skills, recently. Some of the thoughts are related to things I'm observing, while others are on more of a theoretical level.
Some things I'm considering, in particular:
Men vs. women. In Women Don't Ask, there's discussion of how women and men exhibiting identical behaviors are perceived differently; things that are socially acceptable for men will often cause problems for women, such that they wind up being labeled a b****. Related to this, I read about a study recently where two resumes with identical credentials but different names (male vs. female) were sent out to people, and already perceptions of the resumes differed. These thoughts are also partially related to an article that appeared in the Atlantic recently on male versus female history professors. All of that leads me to wonder, how do I get useful feedback about how I'm perceived as a leader? I've always kind of stuck with the idea that my job is to earn respect, not necessarily to be liked, but this has to be balanced against the b**** factor.
Ambiguity in roles. I struggle with this. I don't like it when I wind up in ambiguous power dynamics, where my job and decision-making power are unclear. "Coaching in the boat" is a good example of this - if someone assumes the role of coach while rowing in the boat, he or she winds up being focused on what other people are doing, often at the expense of his or her own rowing technique. Meanwhile, for rowers to do things in a coordinated fashion, they need to be able to hear and respond to the coxswain. Having another person step in and try to do the thinking can go pretty wrong, especially if there's miscommunication between the coach-rower and the coxswain. On the other hand, if roles are more clearly defined, everyone can focus on doing his or her own job. Interestingly, I find I'm happy to be in any of the particular roles, so long as I know what I should be doing. Chain-yanking, or not knowing whether or not I've overstepped my bounds, is frustrating.
Listening/communicating/responding. I suspect that a common complaint people have with leaders is when they feel like leaders aren't listening and responding. In contrast, consider the case of the White House Petition system. At least in that case there's a clear structure for when and how to have a voice and get a response. I think there has to be for people to have any degree of trust in their government. But what happens when it isn't clear whether or not you're being heard, or you're cut off from communication? Seems to me like a recipe for making people tune out/drop out/rebel. Related to that - when do you step up and assume responsibility because you perceive a power vacuum, and when do you take a step back to leave space for someone else to learn and make changes?
From another side of the situation, how does one develop the skills to handle a large volume of interaction? I frequently observe faculty facing this problem. Some handle it by giving off an air of importance, which I know is partially driven by a need to establish boundaries and time to work on personal projects. Some try to listen, but get so bogged down/busy they lose track of stuff. Every once and a while, I encounter someone who seems like they're pretty busy but who still manages to make time for important questions and conversations. Maybe I should track down more of those folks.
Some things I'm considering, in particular:
Men vs. women. In Women Don't Ask, there's discussion of how women and men exhibiting identical behaviors are perceived differently; things that are socially acceptable for men will often cause problems for women, such that they wind up being labeled a b****. Related to this, I read about a study recently where two resumes with identical credentials but different names (male vs. female) were sent out to people, and already perceptions of the resumes differed. These thoughts are also partially related to an article that appeared in the Atlantic recently on male versus female history professors. All of that leads me to wonder, how do I get useful feedback about how I'm perceived as a leader? I've always kind of stuck with the idea that my job is to earn respect, not necessarily to be liked, but this has to be balanced against the b**** factor.
Ambiguity in roles. I struggle with this. I don't like it when I wind up in ambiguous power dynamics, where my job and decision-making power are unclear. "Coaching in the boat" is a good example of this - if someone assumes the role of coach while rowing in the boat, he or she winds up being focused on what other people are doing, often at the expense of his or her own rowing technique. Meanwhile, for rowers to do things in a coordinated fashion, they need to be able to hear and respond to the coxswain. Having another person step in and try to do the thinking can go pretty wrong, especially if there's miscommunication between the coach-rower and the coxswain. On the other hand, if roles are more clearly defined, everyone can focus on doing his or her own job. Interestingly, I find I'm happy to be in any of the particular roles, so long as I know what I should be doing. Chain-yanking, or not knowing whether or not I've overstepped my bounds, is frustrating.
Listening/communicating/responding. I suspect that a common complaint people have with leaders is when they feel like leaders aren't listening and responding. In contrast, consider the case of the White House Petition system. At least in that case there's a clear structure for when and how to have a voice and get a response. I think there has to be for people to have any degree of trust in their government. But what happens when it isn't clear whether or not you're being heard, or you're cut off from communication? Seems to me like a recipe for making people tune out/drop out/rebel. Related to that - when do you step up and assume responsibility because you perceive a power vacuum, and when do you take a step back to leave space for someone else to learn and make changes?
From another side of the situation, how does one develop the skills to handle a large volume of interaction? I frequently observe faculty facing this problem. Some handle it by giving off an air of importance, which I know is partially driven by a need to establish boundaries and time to work on personal projects. Some try to listen, but get so bogged down/busy they lose track of stuff. Every once and a while, I encounter someone who seems like they're pretty busy but who still manages to make time for important questions and conversations. Maybe I should track down more of those folks.
