Reflection

 

This artifact was created for my Foundations of Leadership course. This was my first course that focused explicitly on leadership theory. I was very overwhelmed at the start of this course by the sheer volume of theories, frameworks, authors, and resources. I tried desperately to create some sort of logical infographic to keep track of each theory, but it proved far too complex. I know that one of my areas of weakness is straight memory recall. I can explain and apply ideas, but I need to refer to notes. The number of theories was hard for me, but eventually I realized I did not need to memorize each one. Instead I needed to start to think critically about the affordances and constraints each theory possessed. For me, Fairholm and Fairholm’s (2009) Understanding Leadership Perspectives was a logical and clear explanation of how leadership theory has changed and evolved. They organized leadership frameworks by Trait Theory, Behavioural Theory, Situational Theory and Values Theory (Fairholm and Fairholm, 2006, 6). This resource became one of my most used resources for this course, but especially for this artifact in particular.

 

My biggest challenge was one I put upon myself. My favourite novel is The Poisonwood Bible, by Barbara Kingsolver. It follows the Price family as they embark on a mission to The Congo in 1959s. The patriarch, Nathan Price, is an evangelical minister who aims to bring the word of God to the uncivilized tribes living in Belgian Congo. His wife, Orleanna, and four daughters come with him on his mission. The novel chronicles their experiences in the Congo through the eyes of each of the five women. Unfortunately, they bring all of the wrong things to the Congo and Nathan's quest to lead the people of the Congo to salvation is ultimately damned. I felt that this novel questions the role of the leader, and challenges perceptions of leaders and leadership in a variety of roles. However, there is no clear protagonist since it is written in a post-modernist style. I decided, instead, to examine each of the characters to try to establish who was the most effective leader. This was my biggest challenge.

 

My struggle came from my love for this book and desire to really delve in. I am an English teacher and was suddenly presented with this delicious opportunity to critically analyse a piece of literature…I become so involved I think I could still be working on this project today if I did not make myself stop. I started with a huge list of all the characters, including historical figures who feature in the tapestry of the story. I wanted to explore each character from all four frameworks. However, in the process of writing I realized that not everyone fits into each framework. This was what I started to learn. Leaders and their effectiveness is often a reflection of the lens through which we view them.

 

Nathan Price, the patriarch of the family, seems to be a natural leader and, initially, the protagonist. Interestingly, Kingsolver never writes from Nathan’s point of view. We only know about Nathan from the perspectives of his wife and daughter. She even leaves spaces for us, as readers, to fill in. Nathan fits many of the criteria for Trait Theory of Leadership.  Mann (1959) in Northouse (2010), identified six traits that distinguished leaders from non-leaders. Nathan fits Mann’s traits of intelligence, masculinity, adjustment, dominance, extraversion, and conservatism (Northouse, 2010, p. 17), solidifying his role as a leader. Through trait theory I could see Nathan’s power. I thought it was fitting that the mid-century setting of this novel corresponded with the Trait Theory’s emergence. However, I never felt comfortable with trait theory, or with Nathan. Actually, I always felt he was a fairly ineffectual leader. Trait theory also seems too formulaic and neglectful of circumstance and context. That being said, I thought Nathan’s wife, too, was ineffectual. Initially, I did not even view her as a leader. However, when I started to explore Orleanna through different frameworks, I realized she is actually a pretty powerful leader. I was happy to be able to reframe my image of her through Situational theory. As I said, I had initially created a huge list of characters but slowly cut them down to those who I felt were most integral to the central themes in the novel. I actually thought Leah would emerge as the most prominent leader since she occupies a dominant role amongst her sisters and eventually marries a Congolese man and integrates into her new life. However, I learned that there is no one best leader. Leaders lead in different ways. Different situations, different groups of people, different motivations are just a few of the things that impact how leaders lead. And this was really Dr. Petrarca’s goal in the course; trying to get us to consider how leaders lead. Just as Kingsolver did not choose one narrator or one protagonist, nor is there one clear leader in the novel.

 

One piece of learning from this artifact was about myself as a learner. I realized that I need to set limits for myself that are reflective of the situation I am in. I need to decide when enough is really enough for the purpose of whatever I am working on. In education, and life, we can always do more. We must make choices. In this case I had to sacrifice characters and theories to ensure my work was clear, cohesive and effective in meeting the assignment criteria. Interestingly, I felt an overwhelming desire to be seen by my classmates and professor as a leader in this course and I wanted to create a project that was unique and innovative, a reflection of my leadership.  I was also reminded how much I love learning. I took this course after a leave of absence. I entered the semester with the goal of getting another course completed, but I was reinvigorated to learn. Leadership theory is, for me, so interesting because it is not concrete. What initially overwhelmed me –the volume-actually ended up exciting me. How do leaders lead? What a great question. There are so many answers. I love this.  It actually made me sad to think that my formal education was ending for the foreseeable future. I still gravitate to pieces on leadership and often send them off to Dr. Petrarca. I am still asking myself what kind of leader I want to be.

 

Another piece of my learning here is about digital literacies. In creating this website I was able to combine both traditionally literacy skills of reading and writing on a piece of literature, and creating in a digital space. I think I was successful in selecting an appropriate digital tool to organize my information. Had I written this as a formal paper it would have run the risk of being extremely disconnected. Instead, the reader is able to navigate the website in a non-linear was. I could also include background on the conflict in the Congo, which was the context for the novel. I felt this was important for readers to understand. This decision came from my learning in Social and Cultural Contexts for Education. I felt that this conflict, as the backdrop to the story, was essential to helping readers understand the character’ actions. This fit well with Situational leadership theory as well. On a website it gave me flexibility in how I could integrate this integral background knowledge. Additionally, I integrated some social media pieces. I also applied my visual literacy skills in my choice of imagery, layout and design.

 

My other area was learning was through reflection. As I explored each of these characters and leadership theories I thought about myself. Where did I fit in? Who was I most like. None of these theories felt complete to me. None of these characters were who I want to be, or who I think I am. I could see bits of my younger self in certain moments, but in not finding a theory I felt satisfied with I returned to the remainder of our course learning hungry for a better theoretical framework.