This article was very interesting to read and quite truthfully, seemed to put down the Leadership Guide that we are currently reading. I'm not sure how I feel saying that reading this felt more, for lack of a better word, satisfying. It seemed realistic. Whereas the Leadership Guide is filled with all of this support saying why leadership shall be so praised, is so efficient, and includes all of these steps to create a functional leadership system, this article was realistic and down-to-earth. At the last meeting regarding Chapter 3, Enlist, I can comfortably say that many of us were uncomfortable with the sense of manipulation that was in the reading. Furthermore, some parts were contradictory. All of this, however, was centered around being an influential leader. The Leadership Guide states that leaders aren't born, they're made, (no matter how cliche that sounds), and the New Yorker article confirmed that as well. However, I found that there was a noticeably large difference between how these authors looked at leadership, and more importantly, leaders. Aforementioned was the perspective of Burchard upon leaders and how they are unique, they are the ones molding these vision statements, and how they are powerful. At the same time, the book was, for me, putting leaders on the back burner (while not taking away their credibility), and rather emphasizing how important the relationship between collaborators and the leader is. Conversely, the New Yorker seemed to be emphasizing about how unimportant leaders are. We're cookie-cutter, and machine-like. In the end, "all of equal competence." Furthermore, finding the "true" leader that is often searched for is only found through adjusted views that current problems face us with. This attitude towards a leader does not take away our significance, as leaders are fundamental in any form of progress. However, it does change the way that we look at leaders. This made me think, maybe it's not the collaborators that are so important, but rather our effectiveness and acknowledgement of what our leaders are doing. If so, how can we recognize when there is a leader that is ready to step forward? Also, what is it in a leader we can recognize that is still important in today's society as well as being someone that is effective for the purpose?
Food for thought.
This is a very interesting article especially compared to the book we are reading now, the two authors point of view are so different on what a leader is or should be. The book is suggesting to collaborate with others and the article not so much. This article has shaped my thinking by wondering which idea is right or if there is even a right and wrong way to be a leader.
Like Savannah mentioned, the book and the article seemed to oppose each other- even on points they agreed on, the tone was different. As I read it, I started thinking more about the differences between one idea of leadership and the next- namely, the process and the trait model.
Our book definitely goes by the process. In the article it describes the process method with steps like 'a goal is developed' and 'a team is assembled', which reminded me of the chapters Envision and Enlist. However, it also talks about this trait model, in which we have our classic leader- a charismatic, handsome, by all means way over-glorified hero come to save the day. And I don't think this model has left yet. Books reflect what society wants to read, especially romance books- all the time on my kindle I'll see advertisements for different books and one I saw recently was of our classic superhero leader CEO finding love with a surely less empowered dame. A classic. The same idea is a pretty popular one in other modern fiction, too- Flynn Rider is a charismatic hero with a hidden soul that leads Rapunzel to her dream. Harry Potter has all the traits listed on the fourth page of the article, where they first introduce the idea of specific personality traits, and he grows up to lead the fight against Lord Voldemort (sorry for the spoiler). It goes on. If it's in fiction, in favorite characters and favorite series, it's a wannabe in real life. So if this idea of a trait model leader is still around, and so is the newer idea of a process based leader, what one person thinks when someone says leadership and what another thinks might be very different. My real takeaway from this article is an enforced idea that the version of leadership we're reading about right now is one of many different viewpoints, and that honestly, I don't think there is a specificly, rock-solid way to always get it right.
This was a very intriguing article. There are some parts that correlate with the book but overall, the two oppose each other. One big point of the book is based around the leadership process. It looks into to how to become a leader and how to be a good leader. This article goes into that but it seems to put down. It doesn't directly say it's wrong, but to me, the way Rothman talked about it gave it a negative tone. However, I think one thing this article does well is look into different views. It has many references and goes into what others definitions of leadership are. The more you read, the more you see how different leadership can be. He seems to try to go away from this process that we have been reading and talking about. The book is very put together and even though he is confident with everything he says (or seems that way), it seems to have a cookie cutter style. This article is full of examples and though the author is direct and confident with what he says, it doesn't seem so "perfect" to me. (Maybe this is just the difference between a book and an article but it's what I noticed.) I think this article has really made me think about the idea of this process. How well are you going to be able to follow it? Probably not very exact, but maybe very loosely? The book is just a guide, but I have gotten this idea that if you follow these "rules" and steps you can become a great leader. Now, I am realizing (maybe re realizing) that there is much more to it.
The article, like what others have already said, is more down to earth and relatable than the Leadership Guide is. The Leadership Guide has its own perspective of leadership that anyone can be a leader while the article says that a leader has a certain set of traits. The book and the guide have their own vision of a leader and what they do in society, and I really liked how it altered my view a bit seeing the two different ideas. Both the guide and the article are good perspectives on what leadership is, and I'm still not totally sure which one I believe in more because my own opinion is still being formed. So, while both texts have different ideas of what leadership is, they're both valid thoughts and I like the contrast.
This article agrees with our book on a number of points. They both state, for example, that leadership is a process and that leaders can be made. But where the Student Leadership Guide venerates leaders, this article somewhat condemns them and the need for them as organizational heads and seems to encourage a system in which everyone is a "leader." I have my own doubts about this system, as it seems like it would slow things down a lot and inhibit function - the more different people that have to agree on something for it to happen, the less will happen. I like the idea of people trusting in themselves to get things done, instead of waiting for someone else to make it happen, but that's not how things are right now, and it makes sense to respect those people who actually go and get things done, because so many people don't. It would be an enormous step if a society were to begin to function like in the article, but it would totally change everything about how leadership works. Our book is more about how a leader could do things in actual, modern life, and, contrary to popular opinion so far, strikes me as the more "down to earth" of the two.
I also agree with Canzada, that the book is more of a "cookie cutter." It seems designed to build a specific type of leader in a very specific way. It is probably quite effective at this, but it lacks the ability of the article to convey a general idea while providing freedom for interpretation. I like how the article said that following a leader who is less cookie cutter-esque is more of a risk, and that sometimes that risk is justified. Cookie cutter leaders have their place, and having the skills to be a cookie cutter leader is not a bad thing. There are just some scenarios in which someone else is needed. The question in the end, I suppose, is whether or not such a leader is justified in our current situation.
Reading this article I notice that these two different styles of leadership. To me the article was explaining it's idea of leadership just like the book is doing. They are two totally different styles but in a way work for the certain individual. The style that the author was talking about it shows that my thinking and my leadership can be used in ore ways than I originally thought they would. I can use my leadership in crisis or things that I have gone through.
This article was a nice change of pace to read. I noticed that both authors use a lot of references to other people which helps me know they both have a well educated perspective. The book is more step by step, black and white, specific things and the article seems to talk down a little bit on that and theories like that. I think that both perspectives and others that I haven't heard yet can be used in different situations with different people. This adds more flexibility to my leadership view.
This article seemed to both disagree and agree with the book. The article and the book agreed about how leadership works in some ways. However, the book concentrated more on improving whatever situation you happen to be in, while the article stated that "without an answering crisis, a would-be leader remains just a promising custodian of potential," and that leaders sometimes begin to long for a crisis to fix. The think I took away from this text is that while two theories are very different, both are valid. There are many different ways to be a leader, and these are just two ways.
This article gave me a new view of leadership and made me understand that during times of crises, great leaders step up to the plate because there is a need for them. If there is no crises at all and things seem to be going pretty well, people in leadership positions just sort of doddle around. In the book, it mostly discuses ways of leadership and how to put it in to action, but this article to me makes it seems like there really is no leadership going on in most cases. Back in WWII, like the article mentioned, leaders had to make quick decisions, give orders, and followers had to just conform to whatever the leader wanted. This article makes me think that leaders don't need to be influenced by others, or even take suggestions from collaborates, but on the bad side in my opinion, that is what Donald Trump is doing and it why people support him, because he does what he only does what he wants to do.