Empowerment!

Last week we discussed empowerment. To empower someone means to give away power to someone to make them feel more capable and competent. It refers to increasing the spiritual, political, social, or economic strength of individuals and communities. Being able to do this, however, requires that you know what each person’s niche is. You have to know what each individual is good at and what they bring to the table. To empower someone, you need to believe that the other person can achieve. You need to have faith in the other person and think optimistically. You need to know what to power to give to them, because the power that is suitable for one person may not be suitable for another person. Empowerment includes things such as educating and engaging the other person, being involved in the growth process and changes that are self-initiated, increasing another person’s positive self-image and increasing one's ability in discreet thinking to sort out right and wrong. When I hear the word “empowerment,” I think of being a cheerleader for the other person. You are there to motivate them, to uplift them, to make them surer of their capabilities, to rejoice when they make accomplishments, but most importantly, to stay on the sidelines. We then discussed if we thought organizations we were in were empowering or not. The only one that I could think of was Blue Chip, and in my opinion, it is empowering. It gives me opportunities to show off my talent and skills, my opinion is valued, I feel as though my superiors trust me, I feel support from my superiors (I’ve asked for help many times!), and I am appreciated and recognized for the work that I do. There are many things that could impede one’s ability to empower others. Vanity, being non-trusting, a perfectionist and stubborn are just a few things that could make empowering others much more difficult than it should be. I learned that I’m very motivated by my intrinsic rationale. I love the feeling of accomplishing something just because I put it on my plate. I feel more valuable when I complete my goals that I set for myself. I take on things just because I love to learn and I want to experience as much as I can. I am motivated by extrinsic factors as well (mostly by money). I’d say that I am much more likely to take something on because of my intrinsic motivation, though. I wanted to make the poster for the service showcase. Upon completion, I even took a picture of the poster and sent it to my mom just because I was so proud that I finished it. That is also why I did the first three sections of my paper. I felt that it would be the most challenging thing for me, which made it all the more desirable to take on. I’m very happy with how the poster and paper came out. My partner is satisfied too. That was all the motivation I needed.

Ethics

Last week’s topic was ethics. The word “ethics” seems to be used interchangeably with the words “values,” “morals” and “character.” However, all of these terms have different definitions. Values are a person’s freely chosen personal beliefs. According to dictionary.com, the definition of morals is “pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.” Character is just who you are. It’s who you are when no one is looking at you. Ethics are the social rules that dictate how we conduct ourselves and perceive right and wrong. We then had to come up with a “Universal Code of Ethics.” It had to be able to be applied to all cultures. Codes such as “Do not kill” and “Do not rape” were created. In some cultures, people are killed for religious and many other reasons, so my group refined it to “Do not kill someone for no reason.” This was a springboard into the next topic. What shapes our ethics? Things such as school, family, media, religion and culture mold our ethics into what they are. These have such a strong effect on us because of social learning. This theory suggests that people can learn by observing the behavior of others. Their behavior can be reinforced by modeling the behavior of others. Cognition plays a role in learning. I have experienced this in my own life. My dad was driving me somewhere one time, and he made an illegal move. He turned into a lane that he wasn’t supposed to turn into. I asked him if that was allowed, knowing fully well that it isn’t, and he responded “It’s fine. Everyone does it. Even cops do it.” I’ll admit, since then, I have done what he did a few times. It molded my perception of driving laws slightly. After discussing this topic, I decided to myself that I won’t do it anymore. My dad also influenced my perception of right and wrong in positive ways. My dad is “brutally honest.” I’ve seen him tell someone the truth, much to the person’s displeasure many times. This has rubbed off on me. I find myself being completely honest with everyone, whether my honesty is received favorably or not. I have also seen my dad give money to homeless people many times. Now, whenever I walk by a homeless man or woman, I feel a strong compulsion to find something to give to him or her. Right now, I’m reading Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill right now. In assessing the consequences of actions, Utilitarianism relies upon some theory of intrinsic value: something is held to be good in itself, apart from further consequences, and all other values are believed to derive their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. Mill was a hedonist. He analyzed happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain and believed that these feelings alone are of intrinsic value and disvalue. I agree with his notion that one should aim to produce the most good for the most people.

Social Justice: Inclusivity

Last week we talked about inclusivity as a part of social justice. There are various ways that one can identify him or herself.  You can be an athlete, Christian, musician, artist, singer, or all of these combined. We talked about ascribed identity. It is the social status that one is assigned at birth. As the name implies, it is not a position that is chosen, but is a position that is assigned. Some factors that can determine ascribed status are: age, sex, appearance, race, group and kinship. The practice of assigning statuses exits cross-culturally. Social Group Membership is being a part of a group that receives or does not receive certain benefits. Some of these groups can either be privileged or oppressed. Oppression can take the form of barriers and disadvantages used to keep a group in line. This makes me think of Nazi Germany, when Jews weren’t even allowed to own and operate stores. They had to wear a Star of David on their garments to let people know that they were Jewish. This is certainly a form of oppression, and at this time, being Jewish was a major disadvantage in Germany. These people would be considered targets. Targets are people who do not have privileges or power. Institutions are created by societies, and they mold the way the people within that community grow and learn, among many other things. Systems that arise within these institutions include: sexism, racism, classism and much more. The effects of these activities can be seen all over a society. It can be seen in healthcare, the media, family, the education system, and business to name a few. Though there is a lot of oppression out there, there are also many privileges that can be seen. Privileges are unearned advantages. Being white can be considered an unearned advantage. Being a man can be an unearned advantage. Like targets in oppressed groups, there are people in privileged groups who receive power. These people are called agents. Privilege can also be seen all over society. Something that happened to me makes me think of this topic. My roommate and I were at a Pride event and upon leaving, were harassed by people waiting in the parking lot. They yelled harsh and profane things at us and one of them stepped up and got close to my friend. My friend, needless to say, got very angry and I thought she was going to throw a punch. My roommate intervened and told all of us to get into the car and leave. While we were driving away, these people threw beer bottles at the back window and shattered it. My roommate and I drove home covered in shattered glass. This is an example of oppression that is not so subtle. These people assigned us each statuses and we were targets in that moment. Just being associated with that group gave each of us major disadvantages. The police never found those people, but it really opened my eyes to the disadvantages of the LGBTQ community.

Culture

Last week’s topic was about culture. Culture is a phenomenon. It is the full range of human learned behaviors. This knowledge is transmitted to succeeding generations. An iceberg is used to illustrate what culture is like. Some products of cultures include written languages, governments, buildings, art, music, games, cooking, body language and family structure. However, some products are more noticeable than others in societies. Things like arts, literature, music and dress are often the most apparent aspects of a particular culture. We then played a game called “Five Tricks.” The class was split up into different groups. Each group was then given a deck of cards. Each group had different rules for playing the game. The person who won in the round had to move up a group, while losers moved down a group. This ultimately led to people with different concepts of how the game is played to be mixed up. It forced people to adopt the rules of others or implement new rules. Needless to say, almost everyone in the room became confused…except me. For some reason, I didn’t catch on to what happened. I wouldn’t have known about that had someone not told me the point of the game. I guess I represented the culturally ignorant group of society. Some people became frustrated when other members couldn’t catch on to their rules for the game, while others had no problem conforming to other peoples’ concepts of how the game should’ve been played. These people clearly represented types of people in society. There are the narrow minded people who are not tolerant of other peoples’ differences, just as there are those people who are very inclusive, mindful and tolerant. Some people, because of a sociological influence, feel the need to dominate or be in power. After playing the game, it seemed to me that social influences can have a major impact on how groups function. If culture is simply learned behavior, does it apply to animals other than humans as well? That’s just a question I have. During the game, I found myself imitating the actions of the other players in order to fit in. I knew the rules, and I could have done what I wanted and stood out, but the pressure of the group made me desire to conform. If a group that small can have such influence over my actions, imagine what a whole society can do to someone. Earlier this evening, I went to an event that my resident assistant came up with. We played a board game that had to do with social justice. It really helped me see the privileges of other people. Privileges are unearned advantages. Like in the reading, being white has its privileges. Being an American citizen has its privileges. There are identities of mine that put me at a little bit of a disadvantage in certain situations, but I feel that my privileges outnumber those disadvantages. Even being able to go to college is an enormous privilege that will benefit me in the future.

Group Cohesiveness

The topic of last week’s discussion was groups, with an emphasis on cohesion. How does group cohesion enable an organization to function at their best? In 1980, the U.S. Olympic hockey team had a goal: to obtain a bronze, silver or gold medal. However, they needed to beat the U.S.S.R. National Championship Team, a team from Russia that was to be contended with. They were underdogs, mainly comprised of college students who lacked much experience, and yet were able to defeat Russia. How did they accomplish this? Luckily for them, they had a bond that gave them focus and determination. The cohesion of the group was a force that kept them intact by pushing the members together. Cohesion is considered to be a form of attraction. Attraction can be measured by the number and strength of mutual positive attitudes among the members of the group. Attraction can influence performance at two levels: individual and group levels. In the case of the U.S. hockey team, there was individual attraction since they had to do everything together. This in turn led to each member feeling positively about the group as a whole. Cohesion is the integrity, fellowship and sense of community within the group. Each member should feel that they belong in their group. This can result in enthusiasm and commitment that can be unprecedented. Cohesion can also be considered a type of teamwork. Groups in the military are driven by their shared desires. A group whose cohesiveness stems from their commitment to achieving shared desires is called collective efficacy. Unlike being optimistic and having confidence in the group, this type of cohesion is fueled by shared beliefs that the group can attain their desired goals. It is having faith in the group. It is having a positive regard for the team’s potential. Esprit de corps can also have an effect on the group. Another term for it is positive affective tone. This can have a variety of positive outcomes. The combination of the unity, sense of belonging and shared goals of the teammates of the U.S. hockey team allowed them to beat their opponent. They were, without a doubt, a cohesive group. We then talked about Tuckman’s Model of Group Development. This model consists of: Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing. In forming, the group gets together and gets to know one another. This can be considered the “honeymoon” stage. Storming, as the term implies, is when the group hits conflict. Norming is when the group resolves the conflict and creates routines. Performing is when the group reaches a kind of synergy and performs at pace that goes beyond their routine. This concept does apply to my life right now. My roommate and I have experienced a couple of these facets. In the beginning, everything was fine and dandy. We have definitely had conflicts, but we were able to achieve resolution by going through the norming phase. We each figured out what the other person required to live in a comfortable environment. It has made a relationship considerably better.

Mission and Vision Statements...

Last week’s discussion revolved around “Mission and Vision.” Contrary to what most people think, a mission is something that is never finished. It is a timeless value. A mission statement is a brief description of a company’s fundamental purpose. A good mission statement should answer the question “Why do we exist?” It focuses on the company’s present state and acts as the compass that drives decision making. It can also act as a very strong motivational statement. It guides the employees in making critical decisions that affect the direction of the company. Mission statements remind the company of their ethics and values. A good mission statement acts as a moral compass, and is the center of being for an organization.  It articulates to the customers what is of value to the organization.  The mission statement should explain why the vision statement is what it is. The aspirations of the company should show why the company even exists. We discussed the mission statements of a few different airline companies. Southwest Airlines mission statement is “Dedication to the highest quality of Customer Service delivered with a sense of warmth, friendliness, individual pride, and Company Spirit.” This mission statement does an adequate job of describing the company’s driving force and intentions. The company does demonstrate all of these characteristics. This mission statement is unique for an airline. The mission statement of Delta Airlines is “We—Delta's employees, customers, and community partners together form a force for positive local and global change, dedicated to bettering standards of living and the environment where we and our customers live and work.” I think that this mission statement has much room for improvement. I would have never guessed that this was the mission statement of an airline before the name of the company was disclosed to me. U.S. Airways mission statement is “Customer service has always been a priority at US Airways, and we are committed to making every flight count for our valued customers. Our promise to you: The safety and satisfaction of our customers is a top priority for our airline.” They have held true to this mission statement so far, and while it is not the most comfortable way to fly, I have never made second thoughts about their concern for safety. These are just a couple examples of mission statements. They are concise and should effectively describe the ongoing values of the company. The difference between a mission statement and a vision statement is that the mission statement deals with the present, while the vision statement deals with the future. A company should be able to draw inspiration from its vision statement. It answers the question “Where do we want to go?” Instead of articulating what you want to do in the present, you are articulating what you want to happen in the future. A vision statement paints a picture of the dream of an organization. Like mission statements, vision statement have a huge impact on decision making and the allocating of resources.

Followership

Followership is the capacity or willingness to follow someone. There are different types of followers. The first type discussed in the reading was the “isolators.” Isolators are completely detached from the group. They do absolutely nothing to aid the group. They are the ones who are secluded and don’t have anything to say at meetings. They are not interested in receiving constructive criticism and don’t care about fellow employees or the leader. They never have any idea about what is going again, which can’t be said for “bystanders.” Bystanders usually know what is going on, but fail to act. They only go along with what everyone else is doing, and usually act out of self-interest. “Participants” put it a little more effort than bystanders and are more engaged. However, they are free agents and only care somewhat. “Activists”, the most ideal type of follower, in my opinion, are the ones who are engaged, active and energetic. They have strong opinions about the leader (they can be good or bad) and can either do a really good job at boosting the leader, or do a really good job at bringing the leader down. “Diehards” are, as the name somewhat suggests, the people who are willing to take anything on in the name of the leader or the entity with which they are affiliated. They are deeply devoted to their leaders, but the opposite can be true as well. Diehards can hate the person/people who are in charge and will stop at nothing to get what they want. After doing the activity that was aimed at helping the class determine whether or not they were good followers, I learned that I could work more in that area. I’m not as supportive as I could be, I don’t really do more than what is asked, and I don’t ever council people who are in positions that are higher than mine. My group and I had to come up with tips on how to council and coach the person in the leadership position. One thing I remember coming with was “be conscious of how you start conversation.” Going up to someone and saying “Here’s what you’re doing wrong” is a lot less effective than “May I make a suggestion?”  We then talked about LMX, or “Leadership Member Exchange.” This theory helps to explain the quality of the relationship between the leaders and the followers as it is assumed that leaders do not interact with and distribute resources, time, energy, and attention to followers equally. We then discussed high quality LMX relationships as having things such as higher levels of leader support and guidance. I formed a study group before one of my midterms and I did notice that some people were more engaged than others. Some people were eager to study the material, while others were there simply to copy answers off of people. One girl sucked all the information she could out of me and then left, without even sharing any of her information. She would be considered an isolator. One of the guys in the group, however, took time out of his day to help formulate a study guide with me. He, on the other hand, would be considered an activist.

Process Theory

Last week we discussed the “Process Theory”, or “Reciprocal Theory” of leadership. This is a much more inclusive style of leadership.  There is frequent engagement between leaders and followers.  We discussed the “Relational Leadership Model”, which encompasses all of the qualities of the Process Theory. The Relational Leadership Model is composed of four standards: ethical, inclusive, empowering, and purposeful. To be ethical is to live in accordance with the rules of right conduct. It is basically making moral decisions. For instance, if you as a leader happen to know that one of your workers is struggling to make ends meet and is having a difficult time at work, it would be more ethical to sit down with that individual and discuss options of improving the situation, rather than firing him or her on the spot. To be inclusive is to embrace different points of view. To run things in an inclusive manner ensures that there is much collaboration, which will ultimately be beneficial to the group. To be empowering is to lift the spirits of not only yourself, but those around you. It is using your words and actions to enable people to perform at their best. Coming into work and criticizing everyone is not the best approach if one is seeking improvement. To motivate your group, you would need to find a different way to go about it. To be purposeful is to know what the goal is. It is to be determined and set on a particular accomplishment. If the group knows what is significant and what they are working towards, the chance that they will be successful is indefinitely higher. Having no clue what the goal at hand is can greatly hinder a group’s ability to function well. These principles have three dimensions: knowing, being and doing. These are all self-explanatory so I won’t elaborate on them. We then talked about the Social Change Model revolves around the individual, the community and the group. It needs to be inclusive, and in this model, leadership is viewed as a process and not a position. It promotes things such as self-awareness, citizenship social justice and service to name a few. Social change is aimed at altering a social structure in some way. Social change touches on many different fields in society. Regarding the individual, one needs to be conscious of self, meaning that they need to know their own convictions, values, ideas, emotions, attitudes, etc. They need to understand how to interact with others. They also need to be congruent, or consistent in their behavior. He or she needs to be authentic. Lastly, he or she needs to be committed. The group needs to be able to collaborate, have a common goal and get through issues in a civil manner. The group needs to show citizenship, in that they have a connection to the community. I just recently signed up for the Relay for Life. I found out about it through HOSA, a group on campus that is certainly showing citizenship by addressing this issue in society: cancer. They have been working together to raise money for this cause. I’m going to participate in the Relay for Life in April. It’s nice to see so many people come together to make a difference.

Behavioral and Situational Theories

Behavioral theory earned attention in the mid-20^th century after the publication of an article for the Harvard Business Review. This theory was created with the opinion that leadership can be learned. It is a consensus that certain behaviors or skills are more necessary than others for effective leadership. This is what separates leaders from non-leaders. During research on this theory, it was determined that there were three skills that pervaded all of the studies and which were shown to be indicators of good leadership. The three determinants of effective leadership are: technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills. Technical skills are the skills that are needed to get the job done. Human skills are abilities to relate to other people and develop good interpersonal relationships. Conceptual skills are skills concerning the ability to visualize and make fantasies become realities. After the class discussed these things, we were given a scenario in which we needed to pick who we would nominate to be a leader. Persons B, C and E were the most picked, if my memory is serving me well. I do not think it was a coincidence that they all happened to be experienced in all three different skill levels. I think that the class considered those with experience in all three skill levels as more qualified to be leaders. The nice thing about this theory is that it suggests that there is more than one type of behavior or set of skills that leads to effective leadership. It also emphasizes the behavioral assets of others. This theory demands that leaders change their styles in response to different situations. Leaders have to take a chameleon-like approach to leading. A leader has to be willing to adjust to differences in whatever environment he or she is working in. This is referred to as the “situational theory” and it consists of two dimensions: directive and supportive leadership. “Directing” is, as the name implies, high directive. However, the supportive aspect is low. This style is concerned with giving roles to members and initiating problem-solving and decision-making. “Coaching” is high supportive and high directive. This approach sounds like it could be exhausting. There is a lot of communication with the coaching style implemented. The “supporting” approach is kind of like taking the role of the cheerleader of the group. There is a lot of recognition of members and active listening. Lastly, there is the “delegating” approach. This is low directive and low supportive. This is taking a laissez faire approach and letting members run the show. A friend and I have been working with people with regards to their health. We make meal plans for them and guide them while they work out at the gym. Personally, I have found that the coaching style is the most effective. Listening to them talk about their goals and desires, while giving them direction in order to achieve those goals has shown substantial improvement in their performances. Without this style of leadership, it would be an arduous task to get them motivated, while still informing them.

Trait Theory

In last week’s class, we discussed the “trait approach.” A component of the trait approach is the “great man theory.” This approach focuses more on leaders than the other approaches to leadership. It is concerned with looking at traits and characteristics of people who are in leadership positions in order to gain a better understanding of what “makes” a leader. This theory generates the idea that there is a specific composition of leaders that a person can be born with, or that a person can work to create for themselves.  Initially, it was thought that only “great” people had these traits, hence the name of the theory. This theory was eventually challenged by speculation of researchers in the mid-20^th century. They purported that someone can be a leader, and have the appropriate traits for one situation, but not be a good leader with the appropriate traits in another situation. That makes sense to me. How could someone be a great leader and have traits that are compatible with every situation? However, it’s been recently shown that personality traits are “…strongly associated with individuals’ perceptions of leadership.” (pg. 16) Needless to say, the trait approach is something which is still being studied to this day. Much research has been done on this topic, keeping it alive in the study of leadership. More than a hundred traits have been synthesized and attributed to great leaders. After it was ascertained that a leader can be good in one situation and terrible in another, the idea that traits had to be relevant to certain situations arose. Stogdill, a researcher who published work in the 1970’s, did a study that linked certain personality traits to effective leadership. The major leadership traits are: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity and sociability. I remember being the president of the art club and having to display sociability and self-confidence. It took a lot of confidence to speak to them and be confident about what I was saying, and of course I needed to be a social person to be in this position. I needed to be willing to speak with people and hear their points of view. I also needed to collaborate with all the other group members and make compromises. It was definitely a group effort. We were all the presidents, in different ways. Personality factors correlated to leadership are: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Neuroticism, of course, has a negative impact on leadership abilities. It can really hinder one’s ability to reach his or her full potential in a leadership role. I’d say that the one factor I need to work on the most is conscientiousness. I can be pretty indecisive at times. My opinion completely contradicts what I learned about myself in class, however. That was one of my highest scoring traits in the “Leadership Motive Profile.” Though the trait approach has generated way too many different traits, it is a very helpful approach. This approach really focuses on the leader, which makes it pretty unique.

Leadership Models

The discussion in last week’s class dealt with eras of leadership and the implications of the leaders and followers in each form. The first model of leadership discussed was “Tribal” leadership. This type of leadership revolves around family and is run by people’s fear of not surviving. Tribal members are alienated from goals other than surviving. The tribal leader uses a directive and task oriented approach. This type of approach is mentioned in the reading. They take a high directive-low supportive approach to get work done. It is also required that they have some technical skill because they needed to cooperate with the other members to achieve a goal. The leader is in a leader role because he/she has a skill that is very important for the group to function. An example of tribal leadership that exists today can be found in the United States and Canada. The Sioux people maintain tribal governments in North America and Canada. The leaders make decisions that include: hunting, camp movements, war and peace with their neighbors, and many other community actions. The next model discussed was “Pre-Classical” leadership. In this model, leaders are considered divine amongst their subordinates. They were deeply concerned with spirituality and harbored all of the power. These leaders were usually kings and queens. They had the power to terminate anyone who opposed them and demonstrated strong complicity with churches. The next model is “Classical” leadership. This model took precedence in the early twentieth century. At this time, workers didn’t need very much technical skill. They were given one task, and had to perform the same task over and over again. This consequently made them replaceable, and because they were only doing one thing, they earned very low wages. The leaders, however, didn’t need any technical skill at all. They needed conceptual skill. They needed to work with ideas and concepts rather when with the machinery. Leaders such as Rockefeller and Ford are examples of classical leaders. Workers were overworked and were convinced that their work would build their characters. Following this model is the “Progressive” model of leadership. A coaching approach is taken in this style of leadership. It focuses on empowering employees and unlocking their potential for the good of the organization. Leaders in this model need human skills. Lastly, there is “Post-progressive” leadership. This model addresses the world in which we live today. Leaders of this model must have social perceptiveness and be motivational. They are more concerned with collaborating with team members, rather than be the boss. I experienced this model myself when I worked with a Real Estate company. Once my boss showed me how to do my role, he asked for my opinions about what would make certain things better about the company. He encouraged me and made the work environment very comfortable. I suggested a new way of organizing files and we implemented the idea. It made work more enjoyable and this model, in my opinion, is superior to the ones used prior to this one.

Leadership Over Time

There has been an obvious transformation regarding peoples’ ideas about leadership over the past eighty years. “Leadership” has a multitude of homographs in that it has many different definitions. It is almost impossible to prevaricate about what leadership is, as it is a constantly evolving thing. Events in a period of time can influence society’s sentiments about leadership. For instance, when considering the gap of time between the twenties and fifties, one should expect that views of leadership will adapt to the era in which it is being defined. It is only fitting that leadership was defined as “…an ability to persuade or direct men…” during the forties. The arduous tasks that needed to be performed by not only the men going to war, but by the women who needed to substitute their husbands in the workforce attests to the fact that leaders needed to be persuasive. The propaganda which emanates from this time is another convincing factor that proves people had to adopt new ideas. Thoughts needed to be instilled and emotions evoked, which consequently provoked people to undertake these onerous tasks. Concepts of leadership warrant questions to be asked. Which people are in leadership roles? Namely, which people occupy the highest positions? (I.e. president, vice president, secretary of state, etc…) Is the country in a stable position financially? Is a war going on? Definitions of leadership, whether they are eradicated definitions or definitions which have recently been ushered into the forefront of modern society’s perception of the subject, one thing is certain:

There is no paradigm style of leadership, and the consensus about what leadership is at a particular point in history can reveal a considerable amount of information about that period of time.

When we delve into the fifties, we find that America is in a state of opulence. It was not by avarice that we liberated ourselves from a crippled condition, but by hard work and cooperation between our citizens. Now that America is no longer confronted with paucity and the hindrances that debilitated it only a decade earlier, the leaders of this time can finally retire from trying to coerce people and instead adopt plans aimed at coalescing the country. The fact that the leader’s authority was described as being “…spontaneously accorded him by his fellow group members” during this time gives us a reason to assume that team work was beginning to formulate the backbone of the resilient network we know today.

While leadership has undergone a myriad of transformations, it is still being cultivated. All over the world, multiple forms of leadership are being practiced. There are the menial in spirit, such as Joan of Arc, those who refuse to show fidelity to the law, such as Henry VIII, those who behave profligately, such as Catherine the Great, the stentorian, such as Adolf Hitler, those with seemingly infinite resource and sagacity, such as King David and those who are cunning and brutal, such as Attila the Hun. Even today, we can turn on the television and witness for ourselves the plethora of leadership styles which have sprouted from the past. President Obama is delivering his State of the Union later this evening. I have no doubt that thousands will listen. Leadership has captivated people for centuries, and will until the end of time.