Tuesday, October 03, 2006
heres my learning journal1 for LTB!!!omg its like...1500+ words..haha..i just felt like putting something up on this dead blog.
Foreword:
Individually, each thing I have to say from what I have learnt previously and what I have concluded now is but dry and uncouth. But put together, it is like a painting –either one finds it amusing, or one finds it to be kitsch.
Blurb of Wanda:
Leadership and team building, so I heard. What is this about? What is this for? So I was thinking.
When I first heard about this, I figured that the course would be trying to brainwash students to either be the ones in charge, or to be the ones listening to the ones in charge. A general trend of thought is that a group, (I hesitate to use the term team here), should have one dominant person, whilst the rest of the group cooperates with the alpha.
I personally have to disagree with this idea of how a group of people should work together, and after the in class discussions about the roles of a leader and so on, I have concluded that a group of people should a) work together. This means being cooperative and understanding whilst working together, willing to hear the opinions and ideas of others*. Then there is the role of a b) facilitator. I feel that this role is important as direction and objective viewpoints are crucial in preventing things from going off track and horribly wrong. And of course, c) the leader. Now, when I say leader, I am referring to one who could not only motivate the crew, but also bring them on to greater heights**. This role is of course different again from a manager, a manager may be able to achieve these goals. But I believe that the fine line is that a leader would be altruistic, and a manager would be one that is more interested in organizing the crew in order to meet a target, while paying no heed to each of the members of the crew themselves.
This reminds me of the personality test that I took. It definitely gave me an interesting outlook on myself. Twice. Once when my friend got it in his class, and again when I got the link in the power point in LTB. I was convinced that some statistics must have been off. Like how intellectual I was. Well, the IPIP-NEO narrative report stated that I have a low level of altruism. Do I agree with them? No. I feel that helping people is rewarding! That’s why I am a camp counselor. An unpaid one at that too. How did I ever clock up 150++ hours of community service in a little more than a year without having a sense of altruism? And I was also described as having a low morality. So what does this make me? Like Hitler? I actually respect Hitler as a leader quite a lot. He is a successful*** man. The report also noted that I am not very sympathetic—well I guess that’s why I can cast aside my grief at the deaths caused by this man and commend on his good points.
Then we can now talk about why people follow leaders. I have a theory that people follow leaders because they see qualities in the leader that they respect. Either that, or they agree with the leader’s point of view. Hitler has very handily combined both of these—he is a charismatic speaker, causing the people to feel that he is a very able person, and at the same time turning their point of views to his. Which include the mindset that Aryans are the best race, Jews are impure, the handicapped are to be culled, etcetera. So some, like me, would then say: “oh, actors must be great leaders/figureheads then!” but then, one must look to this story—
A turkey was standing in a field chatting to a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of yonder tree," the turkey sighed, "but I haven't got the energy."
"Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull. They're packed with nutrients."
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found that it actually gave him enough strength to reach the first branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. Finally after a fourth night he was proudly perched at the top of the tree. Whereupon he was spotted by a farmer who dashed into the farmhouse, emerged with a shotgun, and shot the turkey right out of the tree.
Moral of the Story: Bullshit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
Interesting yes? Well, I do find it quite true. But there have been actors who have become leaders, for example Ronald Reagan. And he did manage to lead a country. He led America with his “reaganomics” into its trade deficit. No comment.
Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives through change. This is the definition I got off the slides from class. So any kind of change made would be a show of one’s leadership skills, good. I can do that. So now I know why the “worldview youth conference 2006” was aimed at cinching the “leaders” from each of the schools participating. Except the international students—we make changes because that is what we are used to doing.
There was that discussion about managers and leaders. Well now I have a thought: managers are expected to be leaders, but the superiors of the managers expect the managers to not have catalytic characteristics to an extent. They want obedient sheep that do the job but do not steal their own job!
Should one choose to be a manager or a leader? Managers seem to make more money. Leaders invest time into helping those in their care, which in the long run would be a benefit. But to quote Keynes; in the long run, we are all dead.
Here is a point of interest: What does it mean to be in a team? How is my project group working together? We’ve gone through all sorts of models in class. But I feel that as long as there is some sense of cohesiveness and a crew of focused, driven people, and then the group of people would do the job needed. This is exactly the case with my project group. I do agree that we could be working more efficiently if we felt as though each of us were associated by something more than the fact that we were in the same group. But for now, we have three very driven people, three normal but focused people, and one normal person whose never had to do such a thing before. Hilarious!
I’ve realized a lot about team management and leadership, and discovered many new viewpoints of it. However, what I find strangest and most fascinating are the arguments between whether a leader is born or nurtured. But what I think is most important, is how to be a team player. A lot of focus has been on leading, when what is just as is important is working with your team. Taking example from past group discussions in my experience, when everyone wants to lead****, nothing is accomplished, and when no one wants to lead, we sit and still nothing is done. Hence, striking the balance between this compliance and dominance would be my goal for all my group works. Good thing the course has covered leadership skills.
digression:
* Everyone has their own unique experiences, hence yours truly playing the role of Juliet and Zhang Zhi Yi playing the role of Juliet would result in vastly different expressions of this Shakespearean character. The artists’ values, opinions, background, speech patterns, etc. are different. This is why I love diversity and I have found that being back in the Singaporean system is really limiting the creativity and dynamics of work produced. But be assured, I do appreciate everyone’s difference, no matter how annoying, for it is still something special to me!
**In reference to both a personal growth and progress in the tasks that are to be done.
***Success is the day to day progressive realization of preplanned, personal, worthwhile goals. The argument here would be if the goals are good goals; in Hitler’s case, if it is ethically sound. This in the end was the downfall of his plans.
****
Foreword:
Individually, each thing I have to say from what I have learnt previously and what I have concluded now is but dry and uncouth. But put together, it is like a painting –either one finds it amusing, or one finds it to be kitsch.
Blurb of Wanda:
Leadership and team building, so I heard. What is this about? What is this for? So I was thinking.
When I first heard about this, I figured that the course would be trying to brainwash students to either be the ones in charge, or to be the ones listening to the ones in charge. A general trend of thought is that a group, (I hesitate to use the term team here), should have one dominant person, whilst the rest of the group cooperates with the alpha.
I personally have to disagree with this idea of how a group of people should work together, and after the in class discussions about the roles of a leader and so on, I have concluded that a group of people should a) work together. This means being cooperative and understanding whilst working together, willing to hear the opinions and ideas of others*. Then there is the role of a b) facilitator. I feel that this role is important as direction and objective viewpoints are crucial in preventing things from going off track and horribly wrong. And of course, c) the leader. Now, when I say leader, I am referring to one who could not only motivate the crew, but also bring them on to greater heights**. This role is of course different again from a manager, a manager may be able to achieve these goals. But I believe that the fine line is that a leader would be altruistic, and a manager would be one that is more interested in organizing the crew in order to meet a target, while paying no heed to each of the members of the crew themselves.
This reminds me of the personality test that I took. It definitely gave me an interesting outlook on myself. Twice. Once when my friend got it in his class, and again when I got the link in the power point in LTB. I was convinced that some statistics must have been off. Like how intellectual I was. Well, the IPIP-NEO narrative report stated that I have a low level of altruism. Do I agree with them? No. I feel that helping people is rewarding! That’s why I am a camp counselor. An unpaid one at that too. How did I ever clock up 150++ hours of community service in a little more than a year without having a sense of altruism? And I was also described as having a low morality. So what does this make me? Like Hitler? I actually respect Hitler as a leader quite a lot. He is a successful*** man. The report also noted that I am not very sympathetic—well I guess that’s why I can cast aside my grief at the deaths caused by this man and commend on his good points.
Then we can now talk about why people follow leaders. I have a theory that people follow leaders because they see qualities in the leader that they respect. Either that, or they agree with the leader’s point of view. Hitler has very handily combined both of these—he is a charismatic speaker, causing the people to feel that he is a very able person, and at the same time turning their point of views to his. Which include the mindset that Aryans are the best race, Jews are impure, the handicapped are to be culled, etcetera. So some, like me, would then say: “oh, actors must be great leaders/figureheads then!” but then, one must look to this story—
A turkey was standing in a field chatting to a bull. "I would love to be able to get to the top of yonder tree," the turkey sighed, "but I haven't got the energy."
"Well, why don't you nibble on some of my droppings?" replied the bull. They're packed with nutrients."
The turkey pecked at a lump of dung and found that it actually gave him enough strength to reach the first branch of the tree. The next day, after eating some more dung, he reached the second branch. Finally after a fourth night he was proudly perched at the top of the tree. Whereupon he was spotted by a farmer who dashed into the farmhouse, emerged with a shotgun, and shot the turkey right out of the tree.
Moral of the Story: Bullshit might get you to the top, but it won't keep you there.
Interesting yes? Well, I do find it quite true. But there have been actors who have become leaders, for example Ronald Reagan. And he did manage to lead a country. He led America with his “reaganomics” into its trade deficit. No comment.
Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives through change. This is the definition I got off the slides from class. So any kind of change made would be a show of one’s leadership skills, good. I can do that. So now I know why the “worldview youth conference 2006” was aimed at cinching the “leaders” from each of the schools participating. Except the international students—we make changes because that is what we are used to doing.
There was that discussion about managers and leaders. Well now I have a thought: managers are expected to be leaders, but the superiors of the managers expect the managers to not have catalytic characteristics to an extent. They want obedient sheep that do the job but do not steal their own job!
Should one choose to be a manager or a leader? Managers seem to make more money. Leaders invest time into helping those in their care, which in the long run would be a benefit. But to quote Keynes; in the long run, we are all dead.
Here is a point of interest: What does it mean to be in a team? How is my project group working together? We’ve gone through all sorts of models in class. But I feel that as long as there is some sense of cohesiveness and a crew of focused, driven people, and then the group of people would do the job needed. This is exactly the case with my project group. I do agree that we could be working more efficiently if we felt as though each of us were associated by something more than the fact that we were in the same group. But for now, we have three very driven people, three normal but focused people, and one normal person whose never had to do such a thing before. Hilarious!
I’ve realized a lot about team management and leadership, and discovered many new viewpoints of it. However, what I find strangest and most fascinating are the arguments between whether a leader is born or nurtured. But what I think is most important, is how to be a team player. A lot of focus has been on leading, when what is just as is important is working with your team. Taking example from past group discussions in my experience, when everyone wants to lead****, nothing is accomplished, and when no one wants to lead, we sit and still nothing is done. Hence, striking the balance between this compliance and dominance would be my goal for all my group works. Good thing the course has covered leadership skills.
digression:
* Everyone has their own unique experiences, hence yours truly playing the role of Juliet and Zhang Zhi Yi playing the role of Juliet would result in vastly different expressions of this Shakespearean character. The artists’ values, opinions, background, speech patterns, etc. are different. This is why I love diversity and I have found that being back in the Singaporean system is really limiting the creativity and dynamics of work produced. But be assured, I do appreciate everyone’s difference, no matter how annoying, for it is still something special to me!
**In reference to both a personal growth and progress in the tasks that are to be done.
***Success is the day to day progressive realization of preplanned, personal, worthwhile goals. The argument here would be if the goals are good goals; in Hitler’s case, if it is ethically sound. This in the end was the downfall of his plans.
****
It was crazy how in local school, I could never get my groups to get moving because they would never be saying anything. At all. Please say SOMETHING, I would groan. But to no avail. Though, because of the great Asian values and government conditioning of obedience, once the goal is set, the children go off and do their tasks.
THEN, I went to international school, what a refreshing experience! No more goading people to speak their opinions. Now I had to fight for a say in things. And balance had to be brought in, for people could debate over points, or get over excited over plans and ideas for the future. But since the students have had a lot of experience in group projects, the work process flowed out quickly, and we were able to be more ambitious in our plans.
This is what I hope to be able to do in all my project groups—being ambitious is what makes one stand out. Sure the risk is big, but ambitious projects are done when the team is capable and understands the potential of outsourcing! This is how I amuse myself.
wandaywang @ 10/03/2006 09:01:00 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment
