Someone left a comment
on the first of the blog entries
on Leadership.
I’m not sure I understood the comment.
On the onset,
I read it to mean
that we should be all three leadership styles.
And I said that in the blog entry,
that most of us incorporate all three styles of leadership.
So,
maybe it was the reader of my blog entry
who did not understand me.
I also said
that we tend to lean on one leadership style
more than others,
as least as I far as I can see.
If the comment meant
that we should try to be equally all three
all the time,
well,
I gotta say
that that just won’t fly with me.
Ah, yes, The Holy Trinity.
Perhaps I don’t fully understand that comment,
or perhaps,
that person
just doesn’t understand me.
Either way I can agree that
The Trinity, in all perfection,
is the perfect role model for us.
However,
in our humanity and with our limitations
there are always struggles.
I agree that all of us use these three different models of leadership
at one point or another.
But my point is
that most of us tend to use one model more than another.
That’s neither good nor bad.
It just is.
Now,
I’m not using any scientific method here,
just personal experience.
And the only reason I’m writing out loud
is because I am trying to articulate for myself
my own style.
But I appreciate the comment, nonetheless.
Differing points of view
(which started this blog series to begin with)
force me to think.
Now,
back to the idea
that we, for the most part,
tend to follow one leadership style
over another.
My husband has his leadership style.
My father was one type of leader
and my mother,
who was another style of leader,
complimented him beautifully.
And it just makes life a little easier
if we could name and claim (i.e. “know”)
what our particular brand of leadership is.
It makes us to understand others
and their style of leadership better.
Quite often
the differences of opinions
we find ourselves struggling with
are very simply
caused by coming at the situation
from different leadership perspectives.
Though coming at the situation from different angles,
many times
people with different leadership styles
hope for the same outcome.
They just approach the situation differently.
We need to stop arguing about which path to take
if we both want to reach
the same destination.
And this coming from different angles,
coming from different leadership styles,
is the discussion
that provoked this series of blog entries
in the first place.
But as I so oft do
when I am writing out loud,
I digress. . . . .
. . . .I am no self-help guru
or leadership mogul.
I’m only trying to articulate for myself
some things I see in myself
and what I have learned about others
over the years.
There are definitely
more than three leadership styles.
What I have listed in previous blog entries
are the three
that I have found
to be most productive
in a pastoral music leadership setting,
. . . recall,
this blog is about liturgy
and this series of blog entries
is for a self-definition.
But seriously,
there are other leadership models
that I have come across
over the years.
And,
depending on where you work
or volunteer your time,
a different style of leadership
may be necessary.
But this is a self-descriptive blog series.
I in no way
negate that The Holy Trinity
is the perfect role model.
But I disagree
that our leadership
(as pastoral music directors)
should always be all three perfectly.
Anyhow,
there are many more leadership styles,
not just the three of previous blog entries.
And while I agree the Trinity
is Perfect Unity,
I know that we are imperfect
and need to use what works best for us.
No one can tell me or force me
to be anything I am not.
OK. . .
Rubi’s Rambling again . . .
Back to the thought. ..
There are way more
than three leadership styles.
And some of them
aren’t so pretty.
For example,
there is the Narcissist.
This persons tends to look out only for No. 1.
Decisions made would be primarily
for personal glory
or personal benefit.
This type of leader can be very destructive.
If a leader is forming in the ranks
the Narcissist does all he/she can
to squash that person,
even force that person
to leave the group,
making it look like
the person left of their own free will,
when,
in fact,
the Narcissist made it impossible
for that person to stay in the group.
Rules are made
and then changed
to benefit the Narcissist,
not to benefit the group.
Then there is The “Yes” Person.
This type of leader
does whatever their immediate superior wants,
whether they know it to be right or wrong.
The “Yes” Person
is more concerned about not making conflict
with their boss
but fails to realize
that they are creating conflict
with those they are called to lead.
This constant state of conflict
creates a real dissension in the group.
Then there is the controller.
This person is the micro manager
because they believe they know it all.
The group functions as the controller
wants it to function.
Everything about the group
is under his/her control.
There often is so much structure
that no one can get creative,
there is no freedom
for the Spirit to move.
The structure is put in place
so the controller can control.
There is The “By The Book” leader.
This type of leader
wants everyone to follow the rules
to the letter.
This type of leader
would, perhaps,
be perfect and necessary
in a work place
where danger is involved.
I mention it here in this blog
as I’m just sort of brainstorming
on other types of leadership.
I don’t know that this type of leadership
would fit the pastoral music director. . .
And,
as a tangent,
let me say that there are behaviors in leaders
that can be VERY destructive.
-Criticizing someone in front of others
-Trying to force others
to accept their point of view as right or correct
-Bragging about themselves
-Delegated work that they, themselves,
just did not want to do
And,
as far as leadership styles go,
there are more, I’m sure.
Again,
my purpose for this
blog entry
is a self-evaluation
and self-description.
Yes,
I incorporate
more than one leadership style
But mostly I am only one of them.
And, if indeed,
that were to change,
that change would start with me,
not from someone telling me
I should be this
or I should be that.
Encouraging someone
to try something new,
something different,
is always a good thing.
But there is a BIG difference
in encouraging someone to try something
and telling them
what the should do or be.
Someone telling someone else
what they should be:
that’s where a lot of the “isms” start,
isn’t it???. . . .
OK.
Nuff said on the topic of leadership.
These blog entries
have been cathardic. . . .
