A recurring theme in this blog has been the topic of change. More specifically, how does one effect change
in a school’s curriculum? The reason for
this recurrence is that one of the main aims of this blog is to promote a view
of civics’ content; that is, the mental construct, federation theory. This blog has made the point that at any
given time, a fundamental construct is utilized to guide educators as to what
content is included in a course of study and this includes a course in civics.
The blog has
argued that the current guiding construct, the natural rights view, is
deficient in several ways. For example,
its reliance on a self-defined sense of citizenship and political morality has
led to too many young people adopting self-serving aims at the expense of the
common good. This argument is an involved
one and has been developed over many postings.
A short summary is that federation theory should be adopted as the
guiding construct since it encourages a citizenry that sees itself engaged in a
partnership within itself.
But beyond the
sought-after change is the whole notion of change, per se. And if one is
considering an effective curricular change, one is talking about
transformational change. Before one can
effect a change of this type, one needs to know what leads to change; what
makes it happen. The analysis thus far
in this blog has led to the realization that if fundamental change is to occur,
it needs to be the product of change agents.
A change agent can be anyone involved
with change, but he/she is a leader, someone who is listened to and who gets
others to behave in certain ways. Such
compliance in transformational change is not from anticipation of a punishment
if the follower fails to comply or from an expectation of a tangible reward
such as money or a benefit other than the emotional reward accrued from being
part of a positive change. The subject
follows the transformational leader because he/she believes it is the right
thing to do. This type of leadership is
geared toward long-term not short-term change.
Michael A. Roberto[1]
identifies a list of myths concerning such leadership. The first myth is that leaders of this type
are born, not made. He is quick to point
out that, yes, some individuals are born with inborn qualities that can more
readily be developed into leadership characteristics, but these qualities can
also be taught. Myth two: effective leaders are lone geniuses who lead
through their own efforts and skills.
The truth is that effective leadership can best be described as those
actions that coordinate a collaborative team of workers or volunteers
(depending on the organization being led).
The third myth is that effective
leaders are charismatic and extroverted who thrive in being out there and the
center of attention. Some are
extroverts, but many are not. Many use a
more subdued presence, working below the radar with little fanfare. The fourth myth is that effective leadership
needs authority. Yes, authority can
help, but no example other than Mahatma Gandhi illustrates how much a person
without authority can affect profound change.
And a fifth myth is the belief that
leadership reflects or is associated with a certain set of traits. Leadership comes in many different “packages.” Usually such belief focuses on personality
traits, but studies of leadership have identified an array of personality
qualities among different leaders, and showing one cannot settle on a single
ideal personality makeup that equates to an effective leader.
Future postings will delve into these
myths and other aspects of leadership.
These descriptions and explanations will address a useful view of what
constitutes leadership. While the
treatment will not be about furthering federation theory, it will display an
overlapping message of how coordination, collaboration, and mutual commitment –
federalist qualities – are useful in defining good leadership.
[1] Michael A.
Roberto, Transformational
Leadership: How Leaders Change Teams,
Companies, and Organizations, (Chantilly, VA: The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment