What do you think makes you a productive leader? How do you get things done... and is there anything you'd like to do better?
My definition of “productive” is, as the question continues, one who does the things that he/she is supposed to do in a timely and appropriate manner. Key criteria that make a productive leader are having organization, delegation, and communication skills. In seventh grade, my social studies teacher told our class to memorize the following: “Organization is the key to success; success is organization” While my classmates and I did as he said, it has taken me many years to understand the true value of the lesson. Organization is not simply a matter of stacking papers in an orderly fashion; instead, organization encompasses the strategies of thoughtful planning, decision making, and implementing.
On the note of implementing, a productive leader also understands his/her limits enough to know that delegation of responsibilities is more effective than is shouldering all duties alone. However, a leader’s responsibility does not end with delegation: she must not only elect trustworthy individuals who are sure to complete their task, but must also confirm/remind them of their duties. After all, while delegation empowers the individual members of a group, it is ultimately the duty of the leader to ensure the completion of a given task. Thus, a leader must know to whom and to what extent the responsibilities must be distributed.
Lastly, since a leader is only defined as a leader relative to his group and others, it is crucial that she engages in fruitful communication both within and between the groups. Frequent and open communication prevents miscommunication and infighting that could have been avoided. In addition, it also broadens the group by informing the community about the group’s aims and missions. As a result, not only will the goals of the team be accomplished more readily, but also the membership of the group may increase and bring talents that move the group forward.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Madsen Presidents
What have you learned from Madsen's book? How have you seen yourself or other women around you represented in the stories of these women presidents?
As a student attending a women’s college, I am sometimes tired of the word “woman.” I understand the importance of stressing gender discrepancies, the history of discrimination, and other factors that make the politicization of women a necessary thing. At the same time, I also think that as a women’s college, we are sometimes so sucked into the whirlpool of “woman” that we fail to see the larger dynamics that govern the treatment and relationships of women. It is for this reason that I immediately resented having to read the Madsen book, for after all, here was another plethora of stories that glorified women leaders as though they were unreachable exceptions to frail and delicate beings, special leaders who were special not because of their abilities, but because of their gender.
While I would argue that the book does impart this gender glorifying motif, I suppose it also addresses things that are essential for a leader but beyond the circumscriptions of gender. For instance, one of the presidents recalled her upbringing and how her educational years helped shaped who she became. I can attest to this entirely, for my experiences in high school and more so in college have been instrumental in defining my values. In addition, considering the various backgrounds from which these presidents arose, I am able to see these individuals reflected in my classmates, be it in their personality or histories.
However, I still maintain that the vast majority of what Madsen highlighted was not unique to women, but simply to able and diligent leaders. Regardless of what I have learned from these presidents, I still maintain that distinguishing a leader as a woman leader should only be done if the actions of the leader merit the distinction. In other words, if the “woman leader” in question does what any “man (?) leader” would do, then I do not think that her actions deserve any special praise. So what have I learned from Madsen’s book? I have learned that accentuating the differences in gender is important, but is sometimes unwarranted. I have also relearned a very important lesson: diligence is rewarded and comes to fruition and it is independent of gender.
As a student attending a women’s college, I am sometimes tired of the word “woman.” I understand the importance of stressing gender discrepancies, the history of discrimination, and other factors that make the politicization of women a necessary thing. At the same time, I also think that as a women’s college, we are sometimes so sucked into the whirlpool of “woman” that we fail to see the larger dynamics that govern the treatment and relationships of women. It is for this reason that I immediately resented having to read the Madsen book, for after all, here was another plethora of stories that glorified women leaders as though they were unreachable exceptions to frail and delicate beings, special leaders who were special not because of their abilities, but because of their gender.
While I would argue that the book does impart this gender glorifying motif, I suppose it also addresses things that are essential for a leader but beyond the circumscriptions of gender. For instance, one of the presidents recalled her upbringing and how her educational years helped shaped who she became. I can attest to this entirely, for my experiences in high school and more so in college have been instrumental in defining my values. In addition, considering the various backgrounds from which these presidents arose, I am able to see these individuals reflected in my classmates, be it in their personality or histories.
However, I still maintain that the vast majority of what Madsen highlighted was not unique to women, but simply to able and diligent leaders. Regardless of what I have learned from these presidents, I still maintain that distinguishing a leader as a woman leader should only be done if the actions of the leader merit the distinction. In other words, if the “woman leader” in question does what any “man (?) leader” would do, then I do not think that her actions deserve any special praise. So what have I learned from Madsen’s book? I have learned that accentuating the differences in gender is important, but is sometimes unwarranted. I have also relearned a very important lesson: diligence is rewarded and comes to fruition and it is independent of gender.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
University X
If I were to design a University...hmmm interesting question and this post might be longer than 250 words. To begin with, I am going to name it University X for the purposes of this blog. University X will be a liberal arts coeducational college with approximately 2000 undergraduate students. The following lists specific areas where I would make changes from a typical college:
Financial aid: in addition to state and federal aid and institutional aid, University X will also provide every incoming freshman with a job that is outside of the campus. This way, the students will not only be "forced" (I'm looking for a softer word) to explore the world outside of the college, but also find a constructive way of earning. These jobs would be picked by lottery, and as they progress through college, by skill level. For instance, first-years can be matched up with private residences looking for a babysitter or a clerking position at a corporate office. Upperclassmen can be paired up with internships. Although Chatham does have a resource for jobs and internships, the only students who make use of it are the ones who are willing to take the initiative. The above alternative really hits the concept of the job market off-campus to the first-years. Of course, students will be matched based on their interests and can refuse, but a higher percentage will be willing to go after the suggested job than if they have to find it for themselves at a later time.
Environment: University X will be an entirely green campus: green technology in every building, old and new, and an aggressive recycling program and a garden/functional greenhouse site nearby that provides a large portion of the food required by the college.
Academics: the strength of University X will lie in academics. The admission standards will be in the highly competitive range and the professors will be strongly encouraged to continually engage in research. Their research support will be in the undergraduate students, who can then attend conferences with them. The emphasis on scholarship will be to an extent where obtaining a position with a given professor will be competitive. The tutorial will definitely be a requirement for graduation.
This is a very interesting prompt so if I had more time and space, I would probably come up with more ideas but for now, I think this is sufficient.
Financial aid: in addition to state and federal aid and institutional aid, University X will also provide every incoming freshman with a job that is outside of the campus. This way, the students will not only be "forced" (I'm looking for a softer word) to explore the world outside of the college, but also find a constructive way of earning. These jobs would be picked by lottery, and as they progress through college, by skill level. For instance, first-years can be matched up with private residences looking for a babysitter or a clerking position at a corporate office. Upperclassmen can be paired up with internships. Although Chatham does have a resource for jobs and internships, the only students who make use of it are the ones who are willing to take the initiative. The above alternative really hits the concept of the job market off-campus to the first-years. Of course, students will be matched based on their interests and can refuse, but a higher percentage will be willing to go after the suggested job than if they have to find it for themselves at a later time.
Environment: University X will be an entirely green campus: green technology in every building, old and new, and an aggressive recycling program and a garden/functional greenhouse site nearby that provides a large portion of the food required by the college.
Academics: the strength of University X will lie in academics. The admission standards will be in the highly competitive range and the professors will be strongly encouraged to continually engage in research. Their research support will be in the undergraduate students, who can then attend conferences with them. The emphasis on scholarship will be to an extent where obtaining a position with a given professor will be competitive. The tutorial will definitely be a requirement for graduation.
This is a very interesting prompt so if I had more time and space, I would probably come up with more ideas but for now, I think this is sufficient.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)