James G. Clawson: The Changing Context Of Leadership

2823 Words12 Pages
1. What has this course taught you to date about the type of leader you are and want to be? Be specific with examples and reference to readings or the discussions where relevant. My leadership history I had the opportunity to lead teams early in my career. I have learnt with the “trial and error” philosophy. I have been promoted mostly because of my ambitious traits and acquired expertise. I am an action taker and promote changes all the time to make processes more efficient. I have always encouraged participation of my followers, but sometimes too much. I have required / expected for some individuals to over perform, even to the detriment of their personal goals. People around me had a tendency to perceive me as “pushy”…show more content…
The new leadership skills must encompass, amongst other things: · Empowering the middle level managers and other staff members of the organization. This will result in flatter organizations; · Encouraging the learning process and promote the transfer of knowledge, by ensuring proper training and feedback. Leaders must become constant learners (Ref: Chapter 4 – The Changing Context of Leadership, by James G. Clawson); · Promoting a bottom-to-top communication, while enhancing the top-to-bottom one; · Ensuring that new leaders are trained and given new opportunities within the organization. Essentially, the new millennium, meaning: globalization, climate changes, instant access to information around the world, automation of many tasks, the rise of China, the decline of oil, and many more elements have forced a major paradigm shift, where leaders will have no choice to adjust to the Information Age, if not, they will fail as time goes by. 3. How is being a good follower different from being a good leader? Quotes found during readings and/or research: According to Aristotle, "He who has never learnt to obey cannot be a good…show more content…
Staff members grew very unsecure and cursing became a regular pattern for workers. Were the “boutique like” firm had only two head leaders and many middle leaders, our Québec firm had a multitude of head leaders and about four times the amount of middle leaders. At one point, chaos was the better term to describe the operations. No set objectives were communicated from top-down and the middle managers were doing the best they could with all the changes going on, for example: system changes, accounting changes, segregation of duties of certain core operations,

More about James G. Clawson: The Changing Context Of Leadership

Open Document