This is my response to Rob Tegelberg’s Rank-Talk-Write Activity on Kathleen A. Cahalan’s Integrative Knowing and Practical Wisdom. 

Hi Rob, your summary and points on this Kathleen Cahalan’s article is very insightful. I really appreciated the discussion of critical thinking in leadership in this article. When I was doing research on this critical thinking for this week’s assignment and learning activity, I found it difficult to find articles that related critical directly to leadership so I am so happy to be able to read this article. Thanks for posting the link to it!

Point 6, “To be a successful leader, one must be strong enough in one’s sense of self that one can recognize others are better suited to certain tasks” (Cahalan as cited by Tegelberg, 2017) really spoke to me. As someone who generally likes to be in control of a situation, it is often hard for me to let go and allow someone else to step in. I did not consider this poor critical thinking before but I can definitely see the connection now since critical thinking is processing and analyzing situations fairly and without bias – even when it comes to evaluating your own abilities! This related to what Northouse (2016) is describing when he states that servant leaders have an awareness that “includes understanding oneself and the impact one has on others” and that servant leaders need to be able to “step aside and view themselves and their own perspectives in the greater context of the situation” (p. 228).

References

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tegelberg, R. (2017, October 14). Unit 3 Activity 2: Rank-Talk-Write. Retried from https://create.twu.ca/robtegelberg/2017/10/14/unit-3-activity-2-rank-talk-write/

This is my response to Tim deHaan’s Rank-Talk-Write Activity on Integrity: The Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality, by Dr. Henry Cloud

Tim, thank you for your summary of Dr. Henry Cloud’s book Integrity: The Courage to Meet the Demands of Reality. Your summary paragraph was very clear and your points were succinct and informative. I know that it is the format of the assignment to list the points first and then the summary, but I found it much easier to first understand the summary of the book, and then to go back and review the important points.

I have always regarded integrity as a characteristic that affect our choices and actions in life, but I have never thought about it in such depth as to break it down into the six defining characteristics (Cloud as cited by deHaan, 2017). Breaking it down into separate, applicable steps and processes definitely makes living with integrity more approachable. The points in the book seem to describe living with integrity as a lifelong learning process rather than as a goal to be accomplished.

Thank you for your insightful post!

References

deHaan, R. (2017, October 9). Read-Rank-Write-Integrity (Dr. Henry Cloud) Un3-LA2-BP1. Retrieved from https://create.twu.ca/nocontest/2017/10/09/rank-tank-write-integrity-dr-henry-cloud-un3-la2-bp1/

Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts by Peter A. Facione

Here are the summary points that I collected for this article. They are listed in order of importance according to me:

1. Critical thinking consists of 2 aspects: cognitive skills and disposition (Facione, 2011, p. 5).
2. Core of critical thinking is interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation (Facione, 2011, p. 5).
3. The ideal critical thinker not only has strong cognitive skills, but also has an inquisitive and fair-minded nature (Facione, 2011, p. 11).
4. Strong critical thinking is separate from ethical or moral beliefs because the commitment is to seek the truth with objectivity, integrity, and fair-mindedness (Facione, 2011, p. 14).
5. Critical thinking is just one part of “good thinking”. Other aspects of good thinking include creative or innovative thinking, meditative thinking, instinctive thinking, and kinetic thinking (Facione, 2011, p. 14).
6. Critical thinking is essential for societal progress and human development (Facione, 2011, p. 23).
7. Self-regulation is consciously monitoring one’s cognitive activities and to evaluate one’s own biases or judgements when forming a view in an argument or perspective (Facione, 2011, p. 7).
8. Explanation is being able to present the results of one’s reasoning in a clear and logical way. This means being able to support your reasoning with logical arguments (Facione, 2011, p. 6).
9. Evaluation is finding the credibility of statements or representations made by someone based on their perception, experience, or belief. It is to evaluate the legitimacy of the rationale behind the different statements. (Facione, 2011, p. 6).
10. Interpretation is to understand and express the meaning or importance of a variety of experiences, situations, rules, beliefs, etc. Interpretation also includes being able to categorize, find significance, and clarify meaning of different situations or criteria (Facione, 2011, p. 5).
11. Analysis is to examine ideas, find arguments, and analyze arguments. Analysis is finding the connection and relationship between different statements or descriptions used to express beliefs, judgements, or opinions. (Facione, 2011, p. 5).
12. Inference is to draw reasonable conclusions based on the different pieces of information collected (Facione, 2011, p. 6).
13. Critical thinking is a pervasive and purposeful human phenomenon (Facione, 2011, p. 10).
14. Integrative model of human decision-making indicates there are 2 systems at work. System 1 is quick and intuitive while system 2 is a more reflective system based on planning and reasoning. Both systems work together during every decision but one will overpower the other depending on the situation (Facione, 2011, p. 16).
15. Critical thinking is essential for liberal education, which is learning to learn (Facione, 2011, p. 22).

In his article, Peter Facione (2011) discusses the thinking and decision-making processes of the human mind while focusing on critical thinking. Facione (2011) discusses the findings and results of a study done by a panel of experts that included forty-six professionals from the United States and Canada (p. 8). The experts, as discussed by Facione (2011), concluded that critical thinking is made up of two aspects – cognitive skills and individual disposition (p. 5). The cognitive skills needed for critical thinking are interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, and self-regulation (Facione, 2011, p. 5). However, a person’s disposition and attitude towards thinking is just as integral to the critical thinking process as their cognitive skills. Facione (2011) discusses the importance of a critical thinker to be inquisitive, fair, honest, and flexible in their thinking (p. 11).

In the second half of his article, Facione (2011) analyzes critical thinking as just a part of the thinking processes of the human mind. He mentions other types of thinking processes such as creative thinking, kinetic thinking, instinctive thinking, and meditative thinking (Facione, 2011, p. 14). He also discusses an integrative model of human decision-making where there is an instinctive and reactive system that works together with a reflective and computational system (Facione, 2011, p. 16). Facione (2011) ends the article with a short discussion on why critical thinking is imperative for human development and societal growth (p. 23).

References

Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment. Retrieved from https://www.insightassessment.com/Resources/Importance-of-Critical-Thinking/Critical-Thinking-What-It-Is-and-Why-It-Counts/

This is my response to Riggi Solinap’s Survey Analysis.

In his conclusion, Solinap (2017) mentions that there are certain situations where leaders may show less of certain qualities. I completely agree with him. In Solinap’s situation, even though he considers himself friendly, sensitive, and empathetic, one person rated him neutral for these traits (2017). I had the same findings in my surveys. While I thought myself to be a sensitive and empathetic person, I was surprised to find that others rated me lowest in these two categories. While I understand that the way I perceive myself is not always the way I am perceived by others, I also wonder if sometimes it is necessary to suppress certain traits (such as sensitivity and empathy) in order to be an effective strategic leader in a group? And if so, how does this relate to servant leadership as empathy is one of the characteristics of servant leadership mentioned by Northouse (2016)?

Another point that Solinap (2017) mentions is how self-assured he feels compared to how others see him. I had the opposite where I thought that I present as fairly self-assured, but others rated me lower than I expected in this category. At work, while I feel extremely competent in my own work as a mathematics teacher, I sometimes lack confidence when it comes to leadership roles because I am at an early stage in my career where most other teachers have more experience than me. This is an area I would like to work on.

Overall, I agree with Solinap (2017) in that different situations call for different leadership qualities. When I am working with other teachers my age, I take on a different role than if I was working with a group of very experienced teachers. I think that leadership approaches and strategies are dynamic characteristics and I hope to continue to develop and refine my skills as a servant leader.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Solinap, Riggio. (2017, October 6). Result of Survey Analysis. Retrieved from https://create.twu.ca/riggisolinap/2017/10/06/result-of-survey-analysis/

Overall, I found that the results aligned pretty well with my self-conception. However, I found it difficult to answer certain questions accurately because I take on different roles in different group dynamics. In a group where members are passive, I take on a larger leadership role. However, in a group where others are ready to step into the leadership role, I take on a supporting role instead.

I am surprised that I am fairly task-oriented. As an outgoing individual, I expected my leadership style to be more relationship-oriented. After analyzing my results, I am beginning to recognize the difference between me as a friend or wife, and me as a leader in a group. In different roles, my behaviour changes considerably.

In the Leadership Trait Questionnaire, my coworkers and husband gave me high scores for the friendly and outgoing categories, but sensitive and empathetic were my two lowest scoring traits. I am challenged to not just rely on my naturally friendly demeanor, but to really work on my ability to identify with others and to connect with them on a deeper level.

This is my response to Timothy deHaan’s Follow The Leader post on Simon Sinek.

Timothy, thank you for introducing Simon Sinek’s work to us! It is always interesting to study and learn about inspiring leaders and the common traits that made them successful.

To me, it seems that Sinek’s ideas can be linked back to servant leadership. You mentioned that his first idea was that good leaders make their followers feel safe. This aligns with the servant leadership characteristics “commitment to the growth of people” and “building community” (Northouse, 2016, p. 228-229). Both of these principles help leaders build trust with followers because the leaders are actively and consciously putting the followers first. Sinek’s second idea of identifying the reasons behind a leader’s actions reminds me of Hughes, Colarelli Beatty, and Dinwoodie’s book Becoming A Strategic Leader and their ideas on strategic leadership. Hughes et al. define strategic leadership creating “the direction, alignment, and commitment needed to achieve the enduring performance potential of the organization” (p. 11).

It is fascinating when different authors and experts come to the same conclusions independently. This speaks to how true certain principles are – no matter what the case studies or situations are, many of the basic concepts remain the same.

References:

Hughes, R. L., Colarelli Beatty, K., & Dinwoodie, D. L. (2014). Becoming a Strategic Leader: Your Role in Your Organization’s Enduring Success. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

This is my response to Rob Tegelberg’s post on assigned and emergent leaders (Unit 1 Activity 4).

Rob posed the question “Is it possible to be a leader without taking on the role of manager? Can you think of a tangible example of a leader who is not also a manager”?

I think in most situations, leadership and management functions overlap because leaders are often required to take on some of the responsibilities of managers and vice versa. While I think that it is almost impossible to isolate and separate the two roles completely, I think there are leadership positions where management responsibilities are delegated to others. I think an example of this would be the prime minister of Canada. The prime minster is the leader of the country and his responsibilities include creating a vision for the country and setting strategies. As outlined in the responsibilities of a leader in Northouse’s (2016) book (p. 14), the prime minister is also responsible for building teams, specifically the cabinet. I have limited knowledge of the Canadian government, so I am not sure of the exact details of the prime minister’s duties. However, my understanding is that he chooses cabinet ministers who will help him manage different topics such as “government spending, ideas for bills, and new policies, programs, and services” (Guide to the Canadian House of Commons, 2012). In this case, the prime minister is able to create direction for the country while the cabinet ministers have the expertise to manage the specific areas that they are assigned.

A question that naturally comes up for me after answering Rob’s question would be: Is it possible to be a manager without taking on the role of leader? Any specific examples?

References

Parliament of Canada. (2012). Guide to the Canadian House of Commons [Data file]. Retrieved from https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament/GuideToHoC/pdf/guide_canadian_house_of_commons-e.pdf

This is my response to Tom Williams’ post on servant leadership (Unit 1 Activity 5).

Just like Tom, I find that persuasion is the greatest challenge for me to incorporate in my practice!

Tom posed the question “how do you navigate tough decisions that need to be made quickly and without time for feedback/input while trying to maintain servant leadership principles?”.

Northouse (2016) states that “servant leaders are ethical and lead in ways that serve the greater good of the organization, community, and society at large” (p. 226). While it is important to seek feedback and input as listening is a vital characteristic of servant leadership, the reality is that sometimes time does not always allow leaders to do so in every situation. I believe that in situations like this, it is important that servant leaders act ethically and make the best decision for the group as a whole. This is why foresight is another important characteristic mentioned by Northouse (2014) on page 228. Ultimately, servant leaders are accountable for decisions that are made and the outcomes that stem from those choices.

I believe that servant leadership is a process and shown over a period of time. Followers can recognize servant leadership qualities in an individual over a series of interactions and situations. When a servant leader is put in a situation where he or she needs to make decisions without first consulting the group, I believe the group would show an understanding of the situation as the relationship they have formed allows them to put trust in the leader to make the best choice for the organization.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.