What effect does academic advisor training have on the retention rates of freshmen engineering students?
*Vincent Tinto's model of student retention will be used as a framework for the research.
*By conducting a longitudinal study, I will measure freshmen engineering student's retention rates over a span of four years. Retention data will be gathered for two years; then, academic advisor training will be implemented, followed by additional data collection the next two years.
For a more in-depth explanation of my study, please see my "group page" on Blackboard.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Principal Preparation
I have to admit that I was a little frustrated by the reading at first...because it was focused on K-12. Then, a light bulb went off in my head. I thought, "hey genius, this stuff applies to you TOO!". I thought the piece about principal preparation programs was especially valuable. We do have to make sure that we are well-rounded as professionals; otherwise, we will not be as effective and efficient as we could be.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Diversity Paradigms - Chapter 19
1. Discrimination-and-Fairness Paradigm:
*Leaders usually focus on equal opportunity, fair treatment, recruitment, and compliance with federal equal Employment Opportunity requirements
*May offer mentoring and/or career-development programs for women & people of color
*Does tend to increase demographic diversity in an organization, and often succeeds in promoting fair treatment
*Insists that everyone is the same, with an emphasis on equal treatment - puts pressure on employees to make sure that important differences among them do not count
2. Access-and-Legitimacy Paradigm
*Predicated on the acceptance and celebration of differences
*Led to new professional and managerial opportunities for women and people of color
*Almost always operate in a business environment in which there is increased diversity among customers, clients, or the labor pool
*Tend to emphasize the role of cultural differences in a company without really analyzing those differences to see how they actually affect the work that is done
*Motivation for diversity usually emerges from very immediate and often crisis-oriented needs for access and legitimacy
*Objective is to place different people where their demographic characteristics match those of important constituents and markets
3. Learning-and-Effectiveness Paradigm (a.k.a. Emerging Paradigm)
*Incorporates aspects of the first two paradigms but goes beyond them by concretely connecting diversity to approaches to work
*Overarching theme of integration
*Promotes equal opportunity for all individuals
*Acknowledges cultural differences among people and recognizes the value in those differences
*Encourage people to make use of their background and cultural experiences, and let them influence/enhance their work
*Leaders usually focus on equal opportunity, fair treatment, recruitment, and compliance with federal equal Employment Opportunity requirements
*May offer mentoring and/or career-development programs for women & people of color
*Does tend to increase demographic diversity in an organization, and often succeeds in promoting fair treatment
*Insists that everyone is the same, with an emphasis on equal treatment - puts pressure on employees to make sure that important differences among them do not count
2. Access-and-Legitimacy Paradigm
*Predicated on the acceptance and celebration of differences
*Led to new professional and managerial opportunities for women and people of color
*Almost always operate in a business environment in which there is increased diversity among customers, clients, or the labor pool
*Tend to emphasize the role of cultural differences in a company without really analyzing those differences to see how they actually affect the work that is done
*Motivation for diversity usually emerges from very immediate and often crisis-oriented needs for access and legitimacy
*Objective is to place different people where their demographic characteristics match those of important constituents and markets
3. Learning-and-Effectiveness Paradigm (a.k.a. Emerging Paradigm)
*Incorporates aspects of the first two paradigms but goes beyond them by concretely connecting diversity to approaches to work
*Overarching theme of integration
*Promotes equal opportunity for all individuals
*Acknowledges cultural differences among people and recognizes the value in those differences
*Encourage people to make use of their background and cultural experiences, and let them influence/enhance their work
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
8 Symbolic Roles of Leaders - Chapter 14
1. Historian:
It is important to be knowledgable about an institution's past, so that you can know where it is that you want to end up. Also, it is important to gain the trust and respect of your colleagues before trying to change the institution - this can be done by learning the culture, and history, of the institution. I really liked Deal & Peterson's (2007) suggestion of creating an "organizational timeline". I think that doing this could serve two purposes - (1) to educate new leaders, and (2) to give individuals with a long tenure a visual, showing them where they were, and what they've helped to accomplish over the years - which could be inspirational.
2. Anthropological Sleuth:
When reading the description of the "anthropological sleuth" in the text, I thought..."this sounds like something that people do unconsciously all the time". As leaders, and as members of society in general, we usually have a desire to fit-in with our surroundings. By stepping back and observing, we can learn so much about what is going on around us, without even saying a word!
3. Visionary:
I believe that it is important for leaders to have a vision. In my mind, vision = goals. Without goals, how can there be any progress? What is the point of having leadership in place if there isn't going to be any progress? However, I do think that it is essential to have input from all of the parties involved - the vision should not be a "personal" vision of the leader. In fact, Deal and Peterson cited their 1994 work stating, "by seeking the more profound hopes of all stakeholders, school leaders can weave independent ideas into a collective vision" (pg. 200).
4. Symbol:
The idea of leaders as symbols is a very broad concept. I think back to when I was getting my M.Ed. in Student Affairs...we were always told in class that no matter where you go, you will know somebody, or somebody will be watching. I think this is one of the more simple forms of how a leader can serve as a symbol. Leaders' actions should be such that they would not be opposed to having them broadcast on the front page of the local newspaper....pretty simple rule to live by. However, in the text, the notion of leaders as symbols is taken to further depths. Deal and Peterson (2007) discuss ways in which leaders symbolize their institutions through ways other than by their actions. For example, they discussed how classroom layouts can symbolize the values of the principal. They also convey the idea that time can show how important an issue is to a leader - if they are spending time, which may be hard to come by, on a project, that project must be important to them.
5. Potter:
The idea of the 'leader as a potter' seems to go hand-in-hand with the 'leader as a visionary' concept presented earlier. First, the leader must have a vision, or path. Then, the potter comes in to shape that vision, and make it happen.
6. Poet:
I think that communication, or poetry, is extremely important in leadership. After all, if an individual has great ideas, that does not make them a leader. It is when they are able to communicate those ideas to relevant individuals that they may become leaders. Also, if a leader shows an inability to communicate effectively, he/she may lose the respect of their subordinates. For instance, if a principal sends out a memo to all of the teachers in a school, and the teachers notice poor grammar and spelling mistakes in the memo, they will likely question the abilities of the principal.
7. Actor:
The "leaders as actors" role is somewhat confusing. I understand that when something happens within the school environment, the leader may have to step in to "act" on the school's behalf. However, Deal and Peterson (2007) make it sound as if the leader is a puppet, performing in a show. I would almost rather say that the leader is a "RE-actor", in that they have to react to critical situations and crises. On a different note, it is very important that leaders know how to handle stressful situations. If a leader crumbles under the pressure caused by a crises in the school, not only will that leader's subordinates likely question that leader's abilities, but the surrounding community may start to have doubts as well.
8. Healer:
The 'leader as healer' strikes me as the more humanistic of the leadership roles. This is the portion of the leadership responsibilities where the leader gets to show everyone that he/she cares - not only about the success of the school, but also about the people. I would venture to say that a lot of leaders find this to be the most rewarding part of their job - I know I would.
It is important to be knowledgable about an institution's past, so that you can know where it is that you want to end up. Also, it is important to gain the trust and respect of your colleagues before trying to change the institution - this can be done by learning the culture, and history, of the institution. I really liked Deal & Peterson's (2007) suggestion of creating an "organizational timeline". I think that doing this could serve two purposes - (1) to educate new leaders, and (2) to give individuals with a long tenure a visual, showing them where they were, and what they've helped to accomplish over the years - which could be inspirational.
2. Anthropological Sleuth:
When reading the description of the "anthropological sleuth" in the text, I thought..."this sounds like something that people do unconsciously all the time". As leaders, and as members of society in general, we usually have a desire to fit-in with our surroundings. By stepping back and observing, we can learn so much about what is going on around us, without even saying a word!
3. Visionary:
I believe that it is important for leaders to have a vision. In my mind, vision = goals. Without goals, how can there be any progress? What is the point of having leadership in place if there isn't going to be any progress? However, I do think that it is essential to have input from all of the parties involved - the vision should not be a "personal" vision of the leader. In fact, Deal and Peterson cited their 1994 work stating, "by seeking the more profound hopes of all stakeholders, school leaders can weave independent ideas into a collective vision" (pg. 200).
4. Symbol:
The idea of leaders as symbols is a very broad concept. I think back to when I was getting my M.Ed. in Student Affairs...we were always told in class that no matter where you go, you will know somebody, or somebody will be watching. I think this is one of the more simple forms of how a leader can serve as a symbol. Leaders' actions should be such that they would not be opposed to having them broadcast on the front page of the local newspaper....pretty simple rule to live by. However, in the text, the notion of leaders as symbols is taken to further depths. Deal and Peterson (2007) discuss ways in which leaders symbolize their institutions through ways other than by their actions. For example, they discussed how classroom layouts can symbolize the values of the principal. They also convey the idea that time can show how important an issue is to a leader - if they are spending time, which may be hard to come by, on a project, that project must be important to them.
5. Potter:
The idea of the 'leader as a potter' seems to go hand-in-hand with the 'leader as a visionary' concept presented earlier. First, the leader must have a vision, or path. Then, the potter comes in to shape that vision, and make it happen.
6. Poet:
I think that communication, or poetry, is extremely important in leadership. After all, if an individual has great ideas, that does not make them a leader. It is when they are able to communicate those ideas to relevant individuals that they may become leaders. Also, if a leader shows an inability to communicate effectively, he/she may lose the respect of their subordinates. For instance, if a principal sends out a memo to all of the teachers in a school, and the teachers notice poor grammar and spelling mistakes in the memo, they will likely question the abilities of the principal.
7. Actor:
The "leaders as actors" role is somewhat confusing. I understand that when something happens within the school environment, the leader may have to step in to "act" on the school's behalf. However, Deal and Peterson (2007) make it sound as if the leader is a puppet, performing in a show. I would almost rather say that the leader is a "RE-actor", in that they have to react to critical situations and crises. On a different note, it is very important that leaders know how to handle stressful situations. If a leader crumbles under the pressure caused by a crises in the school, not only will that leader's subordinates likely question that leader's abilities, but the surrounding community may start to have doubts as well.
8. Healer:
The 'leader as healer' strikes me as the more humanistic of the leadership roles. This is the portion of the leadership responsibilities where the leader gets to show everyone that he/she cares - not only about the success of the school, but also about the people. I would venture to say that a lot of leaders find this to be the most rewarding part of their job - I know I would.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
6 Leadership Styles (pg. 171-172)
How do these leadership styles help/hurt the change process? When would you use each style in your work setting?
1. Coercive - the leader demands compliance. ("Do what I tell you.")
As discussed in the text, leaders using a coercive leadership style will often produce employees who "resent and resist". When employees have these types of feelings about the work environment, change will be very difficult to achieve. However, if presented with an employee who is resisting authority, and jeopardizing productivity, I believe that it may be beneficial to use the coercive style, and make sure that the subordinate is aware of the hierarchical structure of the organization.
2. Authoritative - the leader mobilizes people toward a vision. ("Come with me.")
I believe that the authoritative leadership style would definitely be beneficial when trying to implement change. It is important to have subordinates buy into the leader's vision. One way of doing this would be to make the subordinates feel as if they are included in the process. However, I think that if you tried to implement change, with the support of the subordinates, and the change failed - this would likely be detrimental to the degree of influence that the leader holds over the subordinates. After losing that influence, or respect as a leader, it may be difficult to regain your previous leadership status. With that being said, I think that this leadership style would be usable in a situation where the leader felt extremely confident that the change was going to take place smoothly. Then, the leader could use the "come with me" strategy to make the subordinates feel empowered.
3. Affiliative - the leader creates harmony and builds emotional bonds. ("People come first.")
If leaders make a conscious effort to make their subordinates feel important, I think that this could both help and hinder the change process. First of all, if the leader gives off the "people come first" vibe, then subordinates will likely feel a closer emotional bond with them. And, generally, I think that when people feel closer emotionally, they will not want to disappoint the other involved party - which could definitely be a step in the right direction when trying to implement change. However, on the other hand, I think that being too close to subordinates may give off the impression that you can be easily swayed, which could be detrimental to change. For instance, if there is a big deadline approaching, and one of your subordinates' children becomes ill, it would be more difficult (and could possibly hinder the progress of the organizational change) to tell that person that he/she cannot take the afternoon off of work to go and get their child from school, because there is a deadline to meet. On a different note, I do believe that the affiliative leadership style could be quite useful when trying to reward employees.
4. Democratic - the leader forges consensus through participation. ("What do you think?")
I think that the democratic leadership style can only help the change process. After all, if the leader is getting feedback from his/her subordinates, that will allow the employees to see that their opinions do matter, AND may even give the leader some ideas or insight that they had been overlooking. So, simply put, I think that this leadership style could be used in the majority of work settings and situations.
5. Pacesetting - the leader sets high standards for performance. ("Do as I do, now.")
As stated in the text, the pacesetting style can be negative from a change standpoint because, "people get overwhelmed and burn out". The only situation that I can think of where this would be a good type of leadership is if there were an emergency situation. For instance, if the building is burning to the ground, and nobody knows where the fire escapes are, the leader should definitely step in with the "do as I do, now" attitude.
6. Coaching - the leader develops people for the future. ("Try this.")
I believe that coaching can be very beneficial to leadership. It allows subordinates to feel as if their supervisors trust their judgment and their work ethic. In relation to change, I think that coaching should prove to be a positive concept. For instance, if you were trying to make a change, but the subordinates were not very clear on how this was supposed to take place, the leader could make suggestions on how the employee could make adjustments to their work.
1. Coercive - the leader demands compliance. ("Do what I tell you.")
As discussed in the text, leaders using a coercive leadership style will often produce employees who "resent and resist". When employees have these types of feelings about the work environment, change will be very difficult to achieve. However, if presented with an employee who is resisting authority, and jeopardizing productivity, I believe that it may be beneficial to use the coercive style, and make sure that the subordinate is aware of the hierarchical structure of the organization.
2. Authoritative - the leader mobilizes people toward a vision. ("Come with me.")
I believe that the authoritative leadership style would definitely be beneficial when trying to implement change. It is important to have subordinates buy into the leader's vision. One way of doing this would be to make the subordinates feel as if they are included in the process. However, I think that if you tried to implement change, with the support of the subordinates, and the change failed - this would likely be detrimental to the degree of influence that the leader holds over the subordinates. After losing that influence, or respect as a leader, it may be difficult to regain your previous leadership status. With that being said, I think that this leadership style would be usable in a situation where the leader felt extremely confident that the change was going to take place smoothly. Then, the leader could use the "come with me" strategy to make the subordinates feel empowered.
3. Affiliative - the leader creates harmony and builds emotional bonds. ("People come first.")
If leaders make a conscious effort to make their subordinates feel important, I think that this could both help and hinder the change process. First of all, if the leader gives off the "people come first" vibe, then subordinates will likely feel a closer emotional bond with them. And, generally, I think that when people feel closer emotionally, they will not want to disappoint the other involved party - which could definitely be a step in the right direction when trying to implement change. However, on the other hand, I think that being too close to subordinates may give off the impression that you can be easily swayed, which could be detrimental to change. For instance, if there is a big deadline approaching, and one of your subordinates' children becomes ill, it would be more difficult (and could possibly hinder the progress of the organizational change) to tell that person that he/she cannot take the afternoon off of work to go and get their child from school, because there is a deadline to meet. On a different note, I do believe that the affiliative leadership style could be quite useful when trying to reward employees.
4. Democratic - the leader forges consensus through participation. ("What do you think?")
I think that the democratic leadership style can only help the change process. After all, if the leader is getting feedback from his/her subordinates, that will allow the employees to see that their opinions do matter, AND may even give the leader some ideas or insight that they had been overlooking. So, simply put, I think that this leadership style could be used in the majority of work settings and situations.
5. Pacesetting - the leader sets high standards for performance. ("Do as I do, now.")
As stated in the text, the pacesetting style can be negative from a change standpoint because, "people get overwhelmed and burn out". The only situation that I can think of where this would be a good type of leadership is if there were an emergency situation. For instance, if the building is burning to the ground, and nobody knows where the fire escapes are, the leader should definitely step in with the "do as I do, now" attitude.
6. Coaching - the leader develops people for the future. ("Try this.")
I believe that coaching can be very beneficial to leadership. It allows subordinates to feel as if their supervisors trust their judgment and their work ethic. In relation to change, I think that coaching should prove to be a positive concept. For instance, if you were trying to make a change, but the subordinates were not very clear on how this was supposed to take place, the leader could make suggestions on how the employee could make adjustments to their work.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
reflections on questions posed by Evans on pg. 146
1. How do I define my role as a leader?
Evans gives examples of two types of leaders on pg 146 - the mover & the maintainer. I'm not sure that leadership can always fit into one of these boxes. I believe that each and every person has their own unique style of leadership. Yes, there may be similarities between leaders, but ultimately, everyone is different.
I can see qualities of the mover & qualities of the maintainer in my leadership style. The "mover", as defined in the text is someone "who redesigns and reshapes". I am definitely not afraid to make changes within my environment. In fact, I believe that change is necessary to keep things fresh and to keep people interested. However, if I don't feel that I am the expert on a subject, or area, I wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting that changes be made. If I felt like I knew just as much about the situation, or more, than anybody else involved, I would not hesitate; but, until I get to that point, I will generally just observe and reflect.
I am probably more of a "maintainer" than a mover. Evans defined the maintainer as "someone who prefers to keep things running smoothly". I do see the importance of keeping up with day-to-day operations within an organization - and these day-to-day things are what keep things running smoothly. I believe that if a leader runs around changing things on a frequent basis, not only will he/she get burnt out, but his/her subordinates will get frustrated - causing inefficiency within the organization. So, yes...maintaining a steady environment, maintaining a steady leadership style, and maintaining a steady organization are all important in my opinion.
2. What inspires the best in staff?
Evans gives examples of two types of leaders on pg 146 - the mover & the maintainer. I'm not sure that leadership can always fit into one of these boxes. I believe that each and every person has their own unique style of leadership. Yes, there may be similarities between leaders, but ultimately, everyone is different.
I can see qualities of the mover & qualities of the maintainer in my leadership style. The "mover", as defined in the text is someone "who redesigns and reshapes". I am definitely not afraid to make changes within my environment. In fact, I believe that change is necessary to keep things fresh and to keep people interested. However, if I don't feel that I am the expert on a subject, or area, I wouldn't feel comfortable suggesting that changes be made. If I felt like I knew just as much about the situation, or more, than anybody else involved, I would not hesitate; but, until I get to that point, I will generally just observe and reflect.
I am probably more of a "maintainer" than a mover. Evans defined the maintainer as "someone who prefers to keep things running smoothly". I do see the importance of keeping up with day-to-day operations within an organization - and these day-to-day things are what keep things running smoothly. I believe that if a leader runs around changing things on a frequent basis, not only will he/she get burnt out, but his/her subordinates will get frustrated - causing inefficiency within the organization. So, yes...maintaining a steady environment, maintaining a steady leadership style, and maintaining a steady organization are all important in my opinion.
2. What inspires the best in staff?
Just a few ideas...
1. Having an avenue for expression of thought - and feeling confident that someone is listening to their opinions
2. Having leadership within the organization that acknowledge the importance of subordinates and the role that they play within the structure of the organization
3. Feeling safe & secure in their positions (i.e. not having to worry about being laid off)
4. Having leaders that are capable of showing empathy
5. Having leaders that trust in their abilities to do their job, and aren't looking over their shoulder all the time
3. What are my strengths?
My initial reaction to this question was..."I'm not really a leader, so I don't know my strengths". Then, after thinking about it for a minute, I suppose I am a leader. In my current position, I lead students. However, if we are talking about leadership within the organization (i.e. Clemson University), I would have to say that I am pretty close to the bottom of the totem poll.
So...what are my strengths in leading students? The first thing that comes to mind is not a leadership trait by any means, but I feel that the students realize that I can relate to what they are going through because I am very close in age with them. So, empathy and understanding. (WOW...this introspection stuff is hard!!!). Next, I think that when students come into my office they can see that I am generally interested in helping them. In fact, I have made a pact with myself to never let a student leave my office without some kind of relief that the problem they walked in the door with will be addressed. Even if I don't know how to help them, or fix their problem, I can find out who can help them. And, lastly, I am willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done. I don't think that leaders are people who work from 9-5, or 8-4:30. You have to "live the job", and be willing to put yourself out there to help others.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Trustworthy Leadership Matrix
I think that the Trustworthy Leadership Matrix presented by Tschannen-Moran on page 101 is quite interesting. I can definitely see how all of the different pieces are essential in forming a trustworthy leader.
One of Dr. K's statements was "I wonder how these three elements interact to impact change in schools". I believe that change is impossible in schools without the interaction of these functions, facets, and constituencies. Each behavior and each person in a situation can change that situation - leader or not. Everyone has an impact! Or, I guess another way of putting it is...all of the parts (people & behaviors) make up the whole (meaning the school environment).
One of Dr. K's statements was "I wonder how these three elements interact to impact change in schools". I believe that change is impossible in schools without the interaction of these functions, facets, and constituencies. Each behavior and each person in a situation can change that situation - leader or not. Everyone has an impact! Or, I guess another way of putting it is...all of the parts (people & behaviors) make up the whole (meaning the school environment).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
