Do Human Development and Leadership really go together? Or are they diverse topics, joined together by an imperfect process? What is the focus of our Division? Consider the Primers Produced by the Division over the past three years: 1. Chaos and Complexity, 2. Employee Engagement, 3. Measuring Performance, 4. Leading Through Change, 5.The Uplifting Power of Play, 6. Personal Well-Being, and 7. Deming’s Profound Knowledge for Leadership. (The last four are currently in the production process) The Chaos and Complexity was written to apply to leadership. Only the 5 and 6 are clearly in the direction of human development.
Consider the vision of the Division: Being the community of choice for everyone by making human potential a global priority, an organizational and personal imperative. This seems to be about human development, not leadership.
The Division’s mission also seems to focus on human development: Enrich the personal and professional lives of our membership and the global community to triumph over current and future challenges.
What goes unstated, I believe, is that it is the opinion of the leaders of the Division, past and present, that effective leadership requires a developed person. That is certainly my opinion. In fact, I feel the division should focus more of its education on development. After all, advice on leadership would be wasted on undeveloped individuals. Moreover, the methodology of effective leadership is hugely diverse.
Of course, the next question is, what do we mean by development? In my opinion, it includes what has long been referred to as a liberal education. The American Association for the Advancement of Science[i] describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds. Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. It also cultivates "active citizenship" through … community service, internships, research, and study abroad[ii]. ‘
Open-mindedness; freedom from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; consciousness of one’s opinions and judgments; reflective of ones actions; and awareness of ones place in the social and natural worlds are all elements that define good leadership. To these I would add certain branches of technical knowledge, what Deming referred to as profound knowledge: knowledge of variation, systems, psychology, and the theory of knowledge.
This, in fact, could define the goals of the Division' curriculum. Of course, that is only the opinion of one person. We are beginning to seriously engage in this discussion, however, so I submit this for a start.
Brooks Carder, PhD
[i] The AAAS is a very important organization and the publisher of the World’s most important scientific journal, Science.
[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education
Consider the vision of the Division: Being the community of choice for everyone by making human potential a global priority, an organizational and personal imperative. This seems to be about human development, not leadership.
The Division’s mission also seems to focus on human development: Enrich the personal and professional lives of our membership and the global community to triumph over current and future challenges.
What goes unstated, I believe, is that it is the opinion of the leaders of the Division, past and present, that effective leadership requires a developed person. That is certainly my opinion. In fact, I feel the division should focus more of its education on development. After all, advice on leadership would be wasted on undeveloped individuals. Moreover, the methodology of effective leadership is hugely diverse.
Of course, the next question is, what do we mean by development? In my opinion, it includes what has long been referred to as a liberal education. The American Association for the Advancement of Science[i] describes a liberal education in this way: "Ideally, a liberal education produces persons who are open-minded and free from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; conscious of their opinions and judgments; reflective of their actions; and aware of their place in the social and natural worlds. Liberally educated people are skeptical of their own traditions; they are trained to think for themselves rather than conform to higher authorities. It also cultivates "active citizenship" through … community service, internships, research, and study abroad[ii]. ‘
Open-mindedness; freedom from provincialism, dogma, preconception, and ideology; consciousness of one’s opinions and judgments; reflective of ones actions; and awareness of ones place in the social and natural worlds are all elements that define good leadership. To these I would add certain branches of technical knowledge, what Deming referred to as profound knowledge: knowledge of variation, systems, psychology, and the theory of knowledge.
This, in fact, could define the goals of the Division' curriculum. Of course, that is only the opinion of one person. We are beginning to seriously engage in this discussion, however, so I submit this for a start.
Brooks Carder, PhD
[i] The AAAS is a very important organization and the publisher of the World’s most important scientific journal, Science.
[ii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_education
RSS Feed
