Joey Buoscio Ashley Kehoe/Patrick Green UNIV 393 Reflection A January 29th, 2013 The first distinction made

e by Sharon Daloz Parks Leadership Can Be Taught is the distinction that leadership is not and should not necessarily be just a formal show of authority. This authority versus leadership debate can strongly correspond to my own cocurricular leadership role in my chapter. Formally, I am the leader of the pledge class. I schedule and lead meetings, I give presentations, and I teach the history and tradition of our beloved brotherhood. But my authority, while very real, is not all there is to my leadership. In theory the chapter can vote whoever they want into this position, therefore, the authority vested in me is just a formality, in other words, it does not exist yet, nor may it ever. My leadership within our new pledge class is going to require and push me to not only guide them through the obvious and the known, i.e. tests, quizzes, readings, assignments, but will also require me to assist these new members in pushing them into the unknown realm of new ideas and complex introspection which is our ritual. My formal authority can only be used on paper, but my actual leadership will only stick if I am able to prod them into inquiring the unknown and searching within themselves what was already there. The second distinction made by Sharon Daloz Parks Leadership Can Be Taught involves technical problems versus adaptive challenges, expanding on the idea that traditional problems are usually technical in nature and are usually solved simply through working knowledge and the use of procedures already in hand, whereas adaptive

challenges are challenges that require a new mindset of thinking and are often very complex and force the leadership to change and transform their long-standing habits and closely held assumptions regarding the solving of conflicts and even simple learning. A good example for my magister position is the scenario I might encounter if our chapter has a problem with a new member. If a problem arises in the course of the pledge process, the obvious and technical thing to do is to evaluate the pledge and if the negatives outweigh the positives, then we drop and de-pledge him. Through the semesters, I have noticed that when we drop a new member, the majority of the reasons have to do with him not making an effort to get to know the chapter. A challenge that we must learn to adapt ourselves to, besides being more outgoing, is that not every single new member is going to be willing to go out of his way to jump out of his comfort zone, therefore it is imperative that we find ways to indoctrinate our new brothers without necessarily relying on their social skills. This is a very radical idea because social fraternities are just that, social, but by teaching the chapter new imperatives, I am convinced that I can steer us away from just outwardly social activities and focus more on the personal introspection that will hopefully socialize our estranged new members in a new and unique way. The next distinction made by Sharon Daloz Parks is that there is less attention to be paid to the actual transactions of power and more light shed upon the question of progress of said issue. In other words, we should not look to different gains and losses of power in an organization but rather, we should we should be focusing more on the new challenge as it [should be] progresses. Every year, the executive leadership of the chapter changes. We cannot stay stagnant in our issues. Issues like dues collecting, improving recruitment, etc are all chapter problems but they are taken care of by their respective leaders. One

problem in my field is the improving of the pledge education system we have. Many say its way too easy and there are not enough activities, others say that the new members are absorbed into the chapter too soon and the distinction between new member and active brother is blurred; deeming the pledge process unnecessary. This problem is brought up every university break and every new term comes along with promises to reform the pledge education program and every term the newly elected official tries to start his own thing rather than build upon the blocks of previous officers. I plan on building upon the blocks of the previous magister before me, and try to blossom the ideas that he sowed. The final distinction made by Sharon Daloz Parks in regard to our changing world of leadership is the distinction between personality and presence. This distinction states that acts of leadership depend less on the magnetism and social dominance of heroic individuals and more on the capacities of individuals to skillfully intervene in complex systems. I really do not understand what she is trying to say here. I always was under the impression that personality is a key factor in determining a good leader, for, if you strongly dislike a person, based on his or her personality, it doesnt matter how great the reward is, no one is going to listen or cooperate toward the common goal. Parks suggests that as we move from authority and technical problems to adaptive challenges, personality and charisma and charm tend to matter less. I think the opposite is true. As a leader I want my team to adapt to new and unknown territories, I will and should try my best to be as pleasant and as approachable as I can be so others can feel more comfortable in adapting to things that are most likely uncomfortable because they are new and must be adapted to.

Part II

The image of the leader as a hero has definitely permeated into the American psyche as we know it. The author encourages a move to the creative and adaptive role of leadership, rather than the authoritarian, shepherd/flock leader. Parks suggests that, similar to the way artists work with some sort of medium (clay, paint, glass) leaders too should work with their followers as a medium, rather than a force that must be tamed. A good word here is interdependence. Just as the glass blower wants to make glass masterpieces, he is not glass. He does not know every little structural detail of glass, he wants to mold the glass in a way that allows him to make art, while still upholding the structural integrity of the glass (not breaking it). So far, my understanding of leader as artist and not necessarily hero has been developed by the word interdependent. The glass blower is dependant on the qualities of the glass and the glass is dependent on the artist knowing what he is doing, so in the end, both parties are happy. The glass blower has accomplished great art and the glass is now extraordinarily beautiful. The artists doesnt dominate or manage the pledge class, but depends on them in a relationship that gives and takes from both sides. As magister, I am going to get to know each and every one of them as an individual and I will learn about them and they will learn about me. Together, we will both be each others art. This interdependent relationship is absolutely essential to the understanding of this idea. It is important to remember that in this adaptive leadership, the effect of a single action is not fully controllable and may have an affect on the whole, so its important to consider decisions carefully and tread lightly.