Discussion: View Thread

Colleagues,

ELyssebeth Leigh wrote: "Another way to consider all this could be to read
"Biology of Belief" Bruce Lipton and consider how his ideas (e.g. - 'it's
the environment') might illuminate notions of leadership - contingency,
environment, personal prior experiences, capacity for learning and change,
etc."

This is getting close to the issue of consciousness.
Capacity for learning: biotics, cognition
Prior experiences: conditioning (learning), experience
Environment: conditioning
Capacity for change: sentience

I've found myself working with short lists like this and was forced to
revise my approach. To leave emotion out of leadership is almost as
near-sighted as leaving emotion out of consciousness (my problem just a few
years ago). Though not commonly considered in academic views, spirituality
is a significant element in leadership.
Many would put empathy into the emotion category. If we look closely,
however, we find empathy to be resonance with the emotional states of
others. We feel their emotions, not ours. Great leaders often have
powerful bonds of empathy with their followers.

This does not, of course, help Romie Littrel find a small list of contingent
variables.

My copyrighted "intrinsics" expansion of consciousness uses these 10
categories. All apply to leadership
Biotics Body and mind
Conditioning Results of learning
Cognition Thinking and knowing
Emotion Neural/hormonal responses
Experience Learning and sum of learning
Personality Unique sum of characteristics
Sentience Capacity for abstract awareness
Empathy Resonance with states of others
Transcendent Self Soul and spirit
Spirituality Connection to the Sacred

Best,

Gary

...........................................
Innovation of Business
and the
Business of InnovationT

Gary Lundquist
303-840-9929 GaryL@Market-Engineering.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Elyssebeth Leigh
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 4:10 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Contingency Theory: Re: Leadership Claims

Another way to consider all this could be to read "Biology of Belief" Bruce
Lipton and consider how his ideas (e.g. - 'it's the environment') might
illuminate notions of leadership - contingency, environment, personal prior
experinces, capacity for learning and change, etc.
These are all involved at some point inthe cycle of human exchange and will
influence each person to create their own unique 'leadership' process. While
it might be called a 'style' etc it is more easily perceived externally as
an on-going process of interaction. So when we observe a 'leader' are we
seeing the 'whole' or (more reasonably) a snapshot moment/application drawn
from an extensive and diverse array of options. Thinking of this - helps me
to consider more equitably, some less than 'perfect' decisions I perceive
being made by managers I observe. Regards Dr ELyssebeth Leigh


----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
Date: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:25 pm
Subject: Re: [Norton AntiSpam] Contingency Theory: Re: Leadership Claims
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

> Maybe your problem is not about finding a small set of variables
> but is about finding a way to navigate a large enough set of
> variables and teaching that way to those who would understand.
>
> Leadership may lie over in the quadrant known as "generative" in
> which case it is not the variety and quantity of variables that are
> important but the outcomes when they interact.
>
> Regarding the smallest set of variables, consider three kinds of
> leadership (behavior) motivations:
> Maximize Me (Greed -- quid pro quo --- Charisma)
> Maximize You (Service to others, encouraging but admonishing)
> Mediate the Situation (seek the proverbial win-win-win)
>
> cheers,
> Jack Ring
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Romie Littrell
> To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:03 AM
> Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Contingency Theory: Re: Leadership Claims
>
> I've been engaged in a research project since 1997 studying
> preferred leader behaviour across various categories of cultures
> and within organisations in China, and I am becoming increasingly
> convinced that preferred and effective leader behaviour is for the
> most part highly influenced by contingencies, e.g., personalities,
> culture, gender, ethnicity, the situation, etc. I believe Fielder
> had the correct name for a theory of leadership, though some of the
> details may be problematic. Another issue is are the relevant
> contingent variables constant across various situations, cultures,
> organisational sizes (kind of a self-contradictory and circular
> question)?
>
> My problem as a researcher in leadership is finding a small
> enough set of contingent variables to be useful and understandable
> but not overwhelming in number.
>
> The GLOBE study proposes charismatic leadership as general, but
> then break it down into several aspects of charisma. And the GLOBE
> Australia & New Zealand article, from my point of view, calls the
> generality of effectiveness of charismatic leadership into question.
>
> Rgds,
> Romie Littrell

Thanks Gary,
A useful list which helped me think about how to articulate my perspective on leadership education.
When I see 'teachers' modelling leadership most effectively they are doing so by actually 'doing' what they are saying.
So for Romy's purposes - as an educator - the quickest way to get to a "small enough set of contingent variables to be useful and understandable but not overwhelming in number" is to bring to the learners the longest possible list and model the research process by helping them learn how to identify, select and apply and learn to argue for, their own set of variables relevant to their understanding/ perceptions of their context.
Conversely, as a researcher the task become that of developing the longest possible list of variables from which learners become adept at selecting and applying those that are relevant.
This of ocurse - also requires learning gain capability at defining 'relevant' and 'context' etc!
Thus the 'teaching' process is tipped upside down - so that 'learning' becomes the driving force. As the teacher's knowledge becomes a resource rather than an edict, the learner's needs become the driver and a focus for analysis. I do not believe that all learners' needs are equally possible and important. But I am convinced that having ways to help them/us become critically aware of their/our own driving forces (needs, wants, hopes, fears) is a more effective way of helping leaders (in the context of this discussion) come in direct and aware (mindful) contact with their 'self' as leader in the context/s they find themselves.
Paradoxically the 'teacher' retains the absolute right to maintain that 'finding your own leadership principles' is a more important task than 'learning mine'. When learners are habituated to expecting 'to be told' such things the most difficult task of all for teachers, can be to sustain the 'learning mode' and aviod lapsing back into 'teacher'. This is powerful educational leadership - and models the kinds of dilemmas that leaders face anywhere.
Then the 'research process' is more able to accept that there are no 'boundaries' to possiblities. A search for 'smallest set of variables' seems to imply a belief that there is an 'absolute' value in the task, and that it is possible to do it 'objectively'.
Heisenberg showed in the late 1920's that it was no longer possible - in physics - to think like that. I trust that 'management sciences' catches up some time soon.
Elyssebeth

----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Lundquist <garyl@MARKET-ENGINEERING.COM>
Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:18 am
Subject: Leadership and consciousness
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

> Colleagues,
>
> ELyssebeth Leigh wrote: "Another way to consider all this could be
> to read
> "Biology of Belief" Bruce Lipton and consider how his ideas (e.g. -
> 'it'sthe environment') might illuminate notions of leadership -
> contingency,environment, personal prior experiences, capacity for
> learning and change,
> etc."
>
> This is getting close to the issue of consciousness.
> Capacity for learning: biotics, cognition
> Prior experiences: conditioning (learning), experience
> Environment: conditioning
> Capacity for change: sentience
>
> I've found myself working with short lists like this and was forced to
> revise my approach. To leave emotion out of leadership is almost as
> near-sighted as leaving emotion out of consciousness (my problem
> just a few
> years ago). Though not commonly considered in academic views,
> spiritualityis a significant element in leadership.
> Many would put empathy into the emotion category. If we look
> closely,however, we find empathy to be resonance with the emotional
> states of
> others. We feel their emotions, not ours. Great leaders often have
> powerful bonds of empathy with their followers.
>
> This does not, of course, help Romie Littrel find a small list of
> contingentvariables.
>
> My copyrighted "intrinsics" expansion of consciousness uses these 10
> categories. All apply to leadership
> Biotics Body and mind
> Conditioning Results of learning
> Cognition Thinking and knowing
> Emotion Neural/hormonal responses
> Experience Learning and sum of learning
> Personality Unique sum of characteristics
> Sentience Capacity for abstract awareness
> Empathy Resonance with states of others
> Transcendent Self Soul and spirit
> Spirituality Connection to the Sacred
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
> ...........................................
> Innovation of Business and the
> Business of InnovationT
> Gary Lundquist
> 303-840-9929 GaryL@Market-Engineering.com