Kansas State University

search

"The Loop" Blog

COVID-19 and the biopolitical moment for leadership

In this special blog series, Staley School of Leadership Studies professor Brandon W. Kliewer considers an approach to teaching leadership that can further develop our capacity to exercise leadership during the COVID-19 outbreak.

 

The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded us all of the fragility of human life. As the world assesses the damage and begins to consider appropriate paths forward, leadership scholars, developers, and practitioners are increasingly confronted with a series of biopolitical questions. The objective of this short essay is to introduce the biopolitical as a concept relevant to the interdisciplinary field of leadership studies and leadership in practice.

Biopolitics, as a clearly delineated idea, finds its origins in the writing of Michel Foucault[i]. Since its inception, the biopolitical turn has been taken up by a range of scholars in a variety of disciplinary contexts.[ii] Giorgio Agamben[iii], established biopolitical questions as a stable concept for study and consideration in practice. His argument suggested totalitarian regimes and the degree to which mass genocide was operationalized using principles of 20th century industrialization fundamentally re-shaped the relationship between life and political contestation.

The inherent value of sustaining one’s life was now subject to a type of politicization that had not previously been possible.  Matters of basic human existence became subject to political contestation due to modern technological advancement, bureaucratic processes associated with industrialization, and a recognition that evil was not the result of some extreme circumstance but instead a banal[iv] existence that fails to acknowledge the conditions that allows evil actions to exist. The ways in which power was experienced and the range and quality of choice available to people become contested as it related to matters of basic human existence.

 

Biopolitics = Life (Recognizing the Intrinsic Value of Life) + Politics (Power and Choice)

            Biopolitics has since become a lens to analyze claims to human rights, reproductive rights, transgender rights, issues of immigration/migration (particularly the US-border crisis) and the legitimacy of the use of force by the state (particularly state-sanctioned violence disproportionately focused on black and brown bodies) – among others. The COVID-19 global pandemic and considerations associated with re-opening society have exposed leadership studies and leadership in practice to questions of the biopolitical. The purpose of this introduction is to highlight ways biopolitical considerations intersect people exercising leadership from positions of formal authority, people exercising leadership from positions of informal authority, and how leadership scholars theorize leadership.

 

Leadership in practice

Approaches to the process and rate at which communities, businesses, and civic institutions return to “normal” activities unfortunately seems to track ideological divisions in the U.S. An account of biopolitical questions, provides a framework for people trying to exercise leadership, from both a position of formal and informal authority, to navigate this contestation.

Leadership from Formal Authority

Elon Musk provides an interesting case study for how biopolitical questions might be addressed when leadership activity extends from formal position. Musk made the national news when he defied government orders and re-started operations at his Alameda county Telsa factory. Considered by most a decision outside his formal role and the limits of legal authority, Musk’s decision to open his factory raises a series of biopolitical questions. I will highlight how analysis of biopolitical questions helps make sense of the relationship between Musk’s decision to re-open his factory and the employees that fill that factory.

Musk announced on Twitter that he would be on the line with workers when his factory re-opened outside the government’s public health safety order. If workers chose to return to work, knowing the risks to themselves and others, then it seems appropriate to say Musk exercised leadership at the edges of his authority. This assessment brackets any considerations of the ethics of such leadership activity. However, it is not clear the range or the quality of the choice available to the average line worker at the Tesla factory. If the choice was to return to work or be fired, lose unemployment benefits, the ability to eat, to pay rent, and meet basic material needs for survival, the “choice” seem less than free. In fact, if the choice was less than free Musk’s actions would not be considered leadership activity but instead a form of soft coercion. Individuals trying to exercise leadership from a position of formal authority might consider the following questions when trying to take account of the intersection of their leadership activity and biopolitical questions:

What are the circumstances of a choice to return to work? Is there a meaningful possibility to choose not to return to work without significant hardship that threatens essential survival? What were the circumstances of how the choice was made? Is one person, likely the owner of a firm, making the decision for others. Or, are workers organized in a way that helps determine their collective level of exposure, safety conditions in the work environment, and determining when a threat of exposure becomes too high? If power to decide was distributed more evenly between workers and the owner, we might decide that the collective agency or “popular will” of the workers was an appropriate act of civil disobedience. Again, this does not consider the potential health impact beyond the owners and workers of the firm in question.

Leadership from Informal Authority

If you are attempting to influence the way society re-opens from a place of informal authority, the biopolitical lens might provide a different perspective. Our baser instincts might want to coerce pro-social behaviors intended to prevent the spread of COVID-19 through public shaming. Efforts to public shame others does not align with an understanding of leadership activity that values choice or even evidence-based public health strategies.

A more practical approach might be to educate others on the risks to themselves and others when social distancing and appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) guidelines are not followed. The individual right of choice, to accept exposure and potentially to expose others to COVID-19, is tempered by our civic obligations to those more vulnerable in society – the elderly and those with a compromised immune system. Wearing a face covering, practicing physical distancing, and avoiding large crowds represents a burden on your range of choice, but when understood within a larger context of a global crisis, these temporary limits are reasonable civic obligations that we owe to each other. Consider the following: What obligations do we owe others when trying to exercise leadership? What level of burden should an individual accept when recognizing obligations to others during a global crisis?

 

Leadership studies

Leadership studies has increasingly created space for scholarship that has taken a critical, collective, and constructivist lens.[v] This stream of scholarship considers how dialogical, relational, and socio-material interactions produce leadership.[vi] From this paradigm and lens a gap in leadership theory has emerged. Existing Leadership-as-Practice (LaP) theory is not currently equipped to account for the intersections of leadership and the biopolitical. LaP is “…concerned with how leadership emerges and unfolds through day-to-day experience.”[vii] Opportunities to better account for the biopolitical in LaP theory is seen in two areas of the literature.

First, from the perspective of LaP, the biopolitical foregrounds the practice of everyday life. If leadership emerges from the interactions of groups and systems, there must be a way to account for biopolitical questions. Determining who, how, and under what circumstance people and systems are exposed to COVID-19 shapes the possibility of leadership activity. LaP theory must account for how biopolitical questions are accounted for in dialogical, relational, and socio-material interactions. The perceived presence or absence of a viral threat to life impacts the ways groups and systems interact to emerge leadership. Demographic information suggests a wide racial and class disparity in who has contracted and died from the virus in the US. Racial and class disparities highlight patterns in groups and systems that impact how and under what circumstances interactions are recognized as leadership activity.

Second, it is well-established that LaP has a socio-material dimension.[viii] However most spatial accounts of leadership limit the operationalization of space to what can be physically seen by the eye and experienced in relation to each other. The COVID-19 outbreak requires leadership scholars to reconsider how space and socio-materiality is theorized in leadership. Spatial dimensions of leadership need to move beyond accounting for the relation between bodies, language, and physical objects to a conceptual level that provides frameworks for how groups and systems make sense of associated interactions. COVID-19 and associated global crisis has shown the upper limits to how space and socio-materiality is currently theorized in Leadership.

One thing that is quickly becoming apparent is that the biopolitical questions of leadership and space are approached differently depending on whether they are situated within rural or urban environments. LaP theory development ought to make more of an effort to not only account for a wider range of conceptual space, but consider spatial dimensions of leadership through the lens of ideology, culture, and context. This theoretical concern quickly bumps up against questions of practice as fundamental assumptions of our global system and society are reconsidered following a pandemic.

 

[i] Foucault, M “Society must be defended,” Lecture at the Collège de France; Right of Death and Power over Life

[ii] Campbell, T & Sitze, A, Biopolitcs: A reader

[iii] Agamben G, Homor sacer: Sovereign power and bare life; The pollicization of life

[iv] Arendt H, The origins of totalitarianism; Arendt considers how evil is not the result of extreme circumstance, but the banal existence in bureaucratic process and administrative efficacy is what creates the conditions for evil to exist.

[v] Ospina SM, Foldy EG, Fairhurst GT, & Jackson B (2020) Collective dimensions of leadership: Connecting theory and method, Human Relations 73(4): 441-463; Raelin JA (2016a) Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership 12(2): 131-158; Raelin JA (2016b) Introduction to Leadership-As-Practice. In: Joeseph A. Raelin (ed.), Leadership-As-Practice: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 1-17.

[vi] Isaacs W (1993) Dialogue: The power of collective thinking, Leadership 4(3):1-4; Crevani L (2015) Relational leadership: In: Carroll, B, Ford, J, Taylor, S (eds) Leadership: Contemporary Critical Perspectives, London, UK: SAGE, pp. 188-211; Simpson, B., Buchan, L., and Sillince, J. (2018) The performativity of leadership talk, Leadership, 14(6), 644-661.

[vii] Raelin, JA (2016) Leadership-as-Practice: Theory and Application. New York, NY: Routledge; 3.

[viii] Salovaara A, Sauer E, and Ropo P (2013) Embodiment of leadership through material place, Leadership. 9(3): 378-395.

 

Third Floor Research: Measuring the impact of leadership development

In this special blog series, Staley School of Leadership Studies professor Tim Steffensmeier and leadership communication doctoral student, Tamas Kowalik, consider an approach to teaching leadership that can further develop our capacity to exercise leadership during the COVID-19 outbreak.

The impact of leadership development programs oftentimes seems obvious as principles and skills acquired are put into practice in the daily operation of organizations. Anecdotal evidence and testimonies abound regarding the positive impact of leadership trainings. Moreover, it is common practice to evaluate leadership trainings to assess their strengths and weaknesses. Third Floor Research was developed to test and expand upon the ways we measure leadership development. We are curious about how leadership development affects individuals and organizations that are working to make progress on difficult challenges.

Third Floor Research, a partnership with the Kansas Leadership Center (KLC) and the Staley School of Leadership Studies, was launched in 2017 to foster innovation on how leadership is exercised and to advance the field of leadership development. The applied research center focuses primarily on the leadership that is needed to make progress on adaptive challenges. The work is to collect and analyze data that produces useful findings on how to exercise leadership.

Despite a multi-billion-dollar leadership industry, there is a paucity of research focused on the impact of leadership development, particularly outside of formal education settings. We lack enough evidence and understanding about the degree to which leadership development improves outcomes. Third Floor Research aims to narrow that gap with a large-scale, multi-partner research center housed at KLC that studies leadership development initiatives. Two primary strategies to attain that goal are research projects and a global database.

Global database
A key solution to understanding the impact of leadership development is the creation of a global database. The database will house participant data from leadership development programs operating in various places in the United States and abroad.

The collected data will include: participant demographics, dosage of leadership content, program support level and participant leadership progress. The database uses a uniform set of data points to offer funders, teachers and curriculum designers a way to measure the impact of their leadership program in relation to other initiatives. The hope is that it will offer programs a way to assess the long-term impacts of their trainings while offering a way to compare and contrast various programs.

Research projects
Third Floor Research is also conducting research projects on an annual basis. From 2019 to 2020, three research projects were completed:

  • Developing leadership capacities in high-tech industry
  • Leadership development and employee engagement in nonprofits
  • Impact of Community leadership programs on work and community engagement

These studies focus on different contexts that use the Kansas Leadership Center’s competency-based approach to leadership. The KLC framework is built on the idea that leadership is an activity available to anyone (O’Malley and Cebula, 2015). As Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky (2009) highlights: “We find it extremely useful to see leadership as a practice, an activity that some people do some of the time” (p. 24). Moreover, exercising leadership is about mobilizing people to address difficult, adaptive challenges. These studies found significant findings that correlate KLC’s leadership development training to individual and organizational change. The selected key findings from each study noted below demonstrate our research projects capturing the impact of leadership development.

Study 1: Developing leadership capacities in high-tech industry

Employees are thinking about and doing their work differently

After two years of leadership development trainings for employees at various levels at a site of a fortune 500 high tech company, employees were more confident and prepared to engage in leadership interventions. These include: employees use a shared language to overcome conflict and engage more collaboratively to break down silos across units in the company; employees are more prepared to experiment and try new things; and employees are paying attention to the adaptive challenges in their work.

Study 2: Leadership development and employee engagement in nonprofits

Leadership development = enhanced employee engagement

Employees who are likely to use leadership concepts in their daily work are more committed to their organization, more hopeful about the organization’s future and more satisfied with their job.

Study 3: Impact of Community leadership programs on work and community engagement

Twice as likely to serve in a civic role

After participating in a KLC skills-based leadership training, participants are twice as likely to serve in a civic role (e.g. board member, elected official, advisory group, committee member) compared to generalist leadership programs and the general population.

These findings, alongside the global database, represent attempts to measure the impact of leadership development. Ultimately, we are testing the hypothesis that developing the capacity of many people to exercise leadership on adaptive challenges leads to faster and more progress. While that prediction involves a complex set of interactions, Third Floor Research represents a growing group of scholars and practitioners that are working to understand the collective impact of leadership as activity.

Sources

O’Malley and Cebula (2015). Your Leadership Edge. Kanas Leadership Center Press, Wichita, Kansas.

Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Harvard Business Press, Boston

Working with others: Creating the capacity to exercise leadership

In this special blog series, Staley School of Leadership Studies instructor Tamara Bauer considers an approach to teaching leadership that can further develop our capacity to exercise leadership during the COVID-19 outbreak.

 

Mainstream media often highlights examples of leadership that feature individuals doing something for or to others. (Example: an individual comes to “save the people and save the day”). While there is a time and place to help someone by doing something for them (like in a crisis), there is even more power for long-term transformation when we shift our perspectives and actions to exercise leadership WITH others. This shift can better create the capacity for all of us to engage and for all of us to exercise leadership.

Previous blog posts in this series have framed the need for leadership activity to be more collective, relational and community-driven in order to make progress on the complex challenges we are experiencing with COVID-19. (See posts here). A common good approach to leadership requires intentional perspectives and practices where people share responsibility to “create the conditions that enable others to achieve shared purpose in the face of uncertainty” (Ganz, 2010, p. 527).  We need more people engaging in leadership activity, but how?  Working with others is a practice of leadership, and also develops others’ capacity to engage in the work of leadership.

As a leadership educator, I not only want to teach leadership, but also to practice the behaviors, approaches and theories I teach. I have found that exercising leadership with others, rather than to or for, is a series of small and conscious choices to create “a container” for a different kind of engagement and capacity building to emerge. The ways in which I exercise leadership with others further develops others’ capacity to engage in acts of leadership.

As we think about the many spaces of our leadership work, how do we intentionally create “a container” where we maximize and engage each person within the system? And, how does that container further develop others’ capacity to exercise leadership?

Below are a series of insights, questions and examples to guide the application of exercising leadership with others into practice.

Understand the container/system

How do we better understand the groups/systems we are in and consider ways to engage it more fully? Who is part of the system/group?  Whose voices are represented?  Whose voices are missing or who are we not hearing?  As you continually diagnose the system and the stakeholders within the system, you can consider how you might position yourself, your voice and the way you take up space to orient yourself differently to be with the others in the system.

  • I approach each system I am part of (committee meeting, conference room, or classroom) as representing 100%. How can I understand the people within the system in order to invite all people into the 100%? For instance, in the classroom if I take up 60% of the space by talking to students, that only leaves 40% of the space to engage. Seeing a system as fully engaging with one another at 100% allows me to work at continually diagnosing the ways and how people can contribute.

Reorient the space

How do we better share the space with the people in our system? How do we invite them into the work in a way that raises their own engagement, creativity, and purpose? While using your authority and power directed as to and for might be more efficient (such as in delegation), we lose the opportunity to co-create and drive change from within. We must be more conscious of the ways we take up space and work to shift to share space with others.

  • As an instructor it would be easy for me to make all of the decisions about the design and structure of a course. However, if I want to invite students more fully into the space, what decisions can they be part of making? Beginning with their voice – their aspirations, concerns, and ideas for how they best want to learn and engage in the system – creates a space that is shared by all.  Paying attention to room set-up, such as pulling chairs into a circle and sitting with students, will signal their voice is needed in a more intentional way.

Ask more questions

What questions can we ask that will invite people more fully into the space? To feel connected and part of the container? To engage more fully? The art of asking powerful questions is key to co-creating spaces with others.  Carefully framing and asking questions that move beyond the technical information, but rather, reaches people in a way that invites them into the process.

  • As I make observations about the system and container we are creating, I must ask questions that address how the system is functioning. What is working well about how we are engaging? What could we do more of (or less of) to make progress on our shared goals? When I have the urge to offer an answer or a solution, it serves as an indicator for me to pause and reframe my thought into a question to share back with the group.

Listen and be genuinely curious 

How can we momentarily slow down and coach our minds to be curious about what others share? Don’t just listen to respond, but to to truly understand. How can we ask questions and be genuinely interested in the response as to how it might influence the system moving forward? Working to pause our own thoughts to listen and to be comfortable with silence will create the space for other voices, ideas and opportunities.

  • If I observe someone in the system not engaging fully, I shift my perspective/stance to partner with that person. Often through one-on-one dialogue, I ask questions about their perspective in the system, with the intent of being curious to learn more. Through perspective taking, I better understand our system and can ask additional questions to invite their ideas and insights into the process.

Develop an asset-based approach

People are our greatest asset to making progress on the challenges of today. How can we approach people and systems with an asset-based lens? To trust that when we are engaged in meaningful ways, people will contribute, collaborate and create. By working with others, we create the opportunity to develop the capacity of the people within the system.

  • At the end of the semester, I often hear students comment, “We were so lucky.  Our class was unique and different in how we came together; it will not happen again like this.” However, I ask them to consider that it was not by chance of good company, but because we oriented ourselves differently with one another. Through intentional design and practices, we created a way to be with one another in ways that asked each person to bring their full selves. The conversations were more meaningful, more challenging and thus, more connected. The investment of each person created a container where we collectively developed our capacity to learn and lead.

Shifting our perspective and actions to work with people, rather than for or to people, allows for new ways of being and thinking by bringing the wholeness of people to the forefront. We create containers that engage more people fully. Those spaces then develop the capacity of people and systems to exercise leadership more collectively and collaboratively. Ultimately this shift will position us differently to address the challenges and opportunities we face.

 

Resources

Block, P. (2009). Community: the structure of belonging – the structure of belonging  Berrett-koehler.

Clayton, P. H., & Ash, S. L. (2004). Shifts in perspective: capitalizing on the counter-normative nature of service-learning. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 11(1), 59–70.

Ganz, M. (2010). Leading change: leadership, organization, and social movement. In N. Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice (pp. 527-561). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.

O’Malley, E., Cebula, A., & Kansas Leadership Center. (2015). Your leadership edge: lead any time, anywhere. KLC Press, Kansas Leadership Center.

Briefing: Civic Capacity and the Coronavirus

In this special blog series, Staley School of Leadership Studies partner David Chrislip considers how associated leadership studies and civic engagement literatures contributes understanding and supports the exercise of leadership during the COVID-19 outbreak.

 

“Sometimes change is so vast and dislocating that it is hard to tell disaster from opportunity.”

The Economist, April 11, 2020

“The larger project, however, is to increase the resilience of American society.”

The New York Times, April 9, 2020

The Crisis

As the coronavirus continues to devastate communities across the nation, planning for the aftermath is beginning to take center stage. As horrendous as the initial shock has been, it is but the first of many cascading impacts that must be addressed. Economic decline (collapse, in some places), increases in inequality in health and wealth, inadequate capacity of institutions to respond, failing health and education systems, and so on, will follow, rending the social fabric of families, communities, states, and the nation. Trillions of dollars will be allocated and spent by federal, state, and local government agencies and foundations to address these challenges. Some communities will be able to put these resources to good use. Others will become more dependent on outside entities (like governments and foundations) for their survival and less resilient in the face of future challenges. The longer-term response to the effects of this pandemic will be as important as the initial response to its manifesting symptoms.

Given the immensity of the damage and the colossal investment needed to repair it, ensuring that subsequent responses enhance the capacity – the resilience – of communities and regions to respond to future challenges and disruptions becomes imperative. An emerging definition of community resilience goes beyond merely coping with an external shock like the coronavirus and returning to the status quo ante. Radical theories see resilience as a dynamic process, not of bouncing back, but of reinvention and transformation. A systemic response is more powerful than a symptomatic one.

This is adaptive work that involves power, politics, radical inclusion, authentic engagement, and mutual learning. Civic capacity brings these elements together to make progress. Those who study how communities work know why some respond better than others to disruptions like the coronavirus: they are more resilient because they have greater civic capacity. This disaster offers an opportunity to enhance the civic capacity of this country’s communities and regions reclaiming the vital role of civic life in shaping this country’s future.

The Crucible of Change

Over the past two decades, there has been a distinct shift in thinking about where the impetus for adaptation and change should come from in neighborhoods, communities, and regions. Perhaps recognizing the limitations of top-down, externally driven approaches, foundations, government agencies, and other civic actors now aspire (at least rhetorically) to encourage and support community driven responses to adaptive challenges such as health, education, housing, policing, and other public crises that require the community to adapt or to be resilient.

Three premises inform this thinking about community-driven change:

  1. It is more effective in making lasting progress;
  2. It is more inclusive and egalitarian, therefore more democratic;
  3. Communities with the capacity for community driven change are observably more resilient and better equipped to respond collectively as complex challenges arise.

At its core, then, community-driven change can be defined in terms of shared power between decision makers and community members, multiple perspectives on issues, strong participation from diverse people, a focus on the common good, and decision-making processes that are equitable, authentic, and transparent.

 

Top Down/Externally Driven

(doing for)

Community Driven

(doing from within)

Who Does the Work Organizations and Agencies Neighborhoods, Communities, and Regions

(residents, organizations, governments, etc.)

Nature of the Process Decide and Announce Agenda Setting, Problem-Solving, and Consensus Building
Who Organizes and Energizes the Process People with Authority and Influence Many People Exercising Leadership
Who informs the work Content Experts Local knowledge and experience informed by Content and Context Experts
Key Leadership Tasks Marshal Expertise and Influence Convene, Catalyze, and Facilitate

 

For many actors interested in the civic arena, community-driven change has become the preferred approach to transforming systems such as health care, education, and economic development. Over the past year, a panel of experts from the U.S. and Canada, with conceptual and experiential expertise related to civic capacity, worked together to consolidate their knowledge and experience and create a broadly accepted definition of what community-driven change means and what it looks like in practice.

This work on community-driven change generated information about characteristics, qualities, and concerns of communities capable of fostering constructive responses to disruptions and challenges. For example, these communities intentionally confront historic inequities and injustice. They couple an inclusive and engaging civic culture with institutions committed to community engagement. They keep a steady eye on the common good. Many people exercise leadership, some with positions of authority, many without. The leadership focus is on purposeful collaboration and mutual learning to make progress on issues of shared concern.

This understanding of community-driven change led to the development of a Civic Capacity Index (CCI), a measure of a community’s ability to make progress on complex, adaptive civic challenges (an initial version will be available in May 2020 for use in pilot applications).

The CCI helps inform, shape, and evaluate intervention strategies from governments, foundations, and other civic actors. As a diagnostic tool, the CCI, can help policy makers understand the capacity of a community or region to absorb and manage resources directed towards recovery from the impacts of a disruption like the coronavirus. As a framework for community-driven change, the index can be used to design interventions that respond better to presenting challenges while enhancing the civic capacity – the resilience – of the community or region. Responses can be tailored to the civic capacity of a particular place. If, for instance, civic capacity is high, interventions may require less direction. If civic capacity is low, interventions may need to provide more guidance, technical assistance and expertise. Communities can use the CCI as a place to start to assess and build their capacity for community-driven change. The index can track changes in civic capacity over time tying them to current actions. With the help of the community-driven change framework, civic actors can take advantage of existing civic capacity, understand where it is lacking, and build resilience for the future.

The Opportunity

Just as flattening the curve of the coronavirus in its initial stages takes leadership and concerted action, so too does creating a more resilient society. The coronavirus offers an opportunity to both mitigate the symptoms of this pandemic and to generate the ideas and political will to build a more just and equitable society. Realizing these aspirations takes civic capacity. Fulfilling them restores confidence in our collective capacity to respond to disruptions and challenges yet to come.

About the author

David has spent more than 40 years engaging with the concept of civil society and in the work of civic leadership and collaboration. His career has taken him from the National Outdoor Leadership School and Outward Bound to the American Leadership Forum, the National Civic League and the Kansas Leadership Center. He’s worked with hundreds of communities and organizations across this country as well as internationally and has conducted leadership development programs for thousands of people seeking to exercise civic leadership more effectively. He is Principal of Skillful Means. He’s the co-author with Ed O’Malley of For the Common Good: Redefining Civic Leadership (KLC Press, 2013). He’s also the co-author, with Carl Larson, of Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders can Make a Difference (Jossey-Bass, 1994) and author of The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook (Jossey-Bass, 2002). David received his B.A. degree (1966) from Oklahoma State University in economics and history, an M.S. degree (1970) from Wichita State University in economics, and an M.P.A. degree (1982) from Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Key References:

  • Briggs, Xavier de Souza (2008), Democracy as Problem Solving: Civic Capacity in Communities Across the Globe, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Pares, Marc, Sonia M. Ospina and Joan Subirats (2017), Social Innovation and Democratic Leadership: Communities and Social Change from Below, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

 

Recognizing students for leadership and service

On Sunday, May 3, students, faculty, staff, friends and family from the Staley School of Leadership Studies and across Kansas State University gathered to recognize the success and honor the achievements of several K-State students at the Celebrating Service and Leadership awards program.

For the first time since the inception of this awards program, the event took place digitally over Zoom and Facebook Live. While guests could not gather physically, the importance and value of coming together was not lost in this virtual event.

“These awards, these students who receive them, are so deserving of recognition, however we are able to come together to celebrate,” said Mary Hale Tolar, director of the Staley School.

“The recipients of these awards have demonstrated time and again what it means to demonstrate leadership in service to their communities. In their student organizations, in the classroom, through service-learning and more, they go above and beyond.”

Zoom live screen shot

 

The following students were recognized:

The Candi Hironaka Outstanding LEAD 212 Class Leader award

  • Lorena Juanez, Kansas City, Missouri
  • Matt Plummer, Wamego, Kansas
  • Hannah Valentine, Lake Winnebago, Missouri
  • Emily Wollard, Overland Park, Kansas

The Outstanding Civic Engagement award

  • Francisco Cardoza, Kansas City, Kansas

The Nonprofit Leadership Outstanding Graduating Senior award

  • Katie Buhler, Pratt, Kansas

The Pat. J. Bosco Leadership Studies Outstanding Graduating Senior award

  • Abby Molzer, Lenexa, Kansas
  • Hannah Sutherland, Lenexa, Kansas
  • Chelsea Turner, Kansas City, Kansas

Sincere thanks go to these students and their nominators. They strive to carry the mission of the Staley School: Developing knowledgeable, ethical, caring, inclusive leaders for a diverse and changing world.

Learn more about the awards or to view a list of past recipients here.

You can view the entire event below or on Facebook.

Leading change with women and girls during COVID-19 in Uganda

In this special blog series, Staley School of Leadership Studies partner Zaharah Namanda, with framing from Trisha Gott, considers how our academic framework, research agenda and the associated leadership studies literature contributes understanding and support the exercise of leadership during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Zaharah Namanda is a community worker and leader, with a focus on education with and for women and girls. She is a country co-director for the Africa Education and Leadership Initiative (Africa ELI), a non-governmental organization that provides educational opportunities for young female refugees from South Sudan. Namanda has been leading prior to the COVID-19 pandemic by providing strategic direction and working with a team to implement programs, coordinate logistics, and monitor and evaluate student performance.

Her commitment to empowering young women and girls through education drives her desire to shape and belong to a community where young girls and boys have equal access to education. Since completing the Mandela Washington Fellowship, in 2020 Zaharah has worked to strengthen her education advocacy work and empower young women and girls in Uganda. Recently, she provided reflections in organizational and community adaptations to leadership in the time of COVID-19 what follows are her words about local, organizational and global responses.

Local, Organizational, and Global Change

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, community activist, Zaharah Namanda set down to write some early reflections and responses to the crises. Her work described efforts locally, organizationally, and in leading change.  While she wrote in her context of serving women and girls in Uganda, her reflections can serve all those seeking to practice leadership today. She began by sharing how her team is adapting work in real time:

  • Locally: We are working online with people and organizations in the tailoring department to stitch locally made masks that we can distribute to people who need them. Already a prototype has been created and stitching is ongoing. Also, we keep sharing information regarding COVID-19 online to keep the community informed.
  • Organizationally: We created a WhatsApp group after we returned our students to the refugee camps when school closed. Our students reside [in] the refugee camps and not everyone has access to a smart phone. We inform our girls about what is required of them during this period. We keep them engaged virtually through wellness activities and challenging them to express how they feel through poems, helping us learn how to support their needs. The elders will provide feedback regarding how our students who are offline feel about the situation.
  • Leading change: I urge everyone to be proactive in this critical time, especially where we rely on one another. This is a call for us to serve in our own capacity. We can do small things that can change people’s lives. Who knew that today the greatest teaching shall be teaching people how to wash their hands or sanitize? 

Beyond the local and organizational context, Namanda also shares a message about communicating to a global audience about the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • What would you want to communicate to a global audience (using social media) about leadership in global pandemic? This pandemic is proof that leadership is people. Everyone is called to serve in different ways, small or big, and we should learn to value people’s contributions. In addition, this period is evidence that leadership is not power/authority because it has humbled everyone regardless of their positions, technology, health care systems or finances.

Considerations for reflection:

Namanda framed some reflections for consideration related to how we reclaim, rewrite, and redesign

our use of discourse, narrative and rhetoric for leadership in this time. “COVID-19 has got people out of their comfort zone. Most people have stood up to help advocate for the safety of others. Given that it is an emergency, I have seen people stop implementing their priority activities to take a lead in the common fight of COVID-19, seeing that it requires an emergency response measure. It’s evident in how people communicate on social media, innovate memes that are informative in this line and push beyond their limits to give sanitizers and hand washing liquids to the minority…”

With this in mind, we may pause to consider:

  • Is there a new narrative seeking to be told that might advance understanding in your circle? What discourses might help promote health, offer insights into wellbeing and advance our sense of community and purpose today?
  • What observations can you make about leadership activity in your organization and/or cultural context? How have the everyday circumstances of your leadership efforts changed as a result of COVID-19? What can your organization and/or community learn as a result of taking notice of the everyday circumstances that inform your approach to leadership activity during COVID-19?

Considerations for reflection:

In making sense of the embodiment and emotion that is key to our efforts, Namanda offers this reflection, “Staying home is one thing but also having collaborators who are mindful about emergencies is something else. Some collaborators only want to see progress and they may not be a force towards the progress in critical times like this. This means that contracts everyday are being lost. “

  • What is required to not just seek progress, but to be a force for progress in critical times like these?
  • How do we re-imagine what “progress” includes in a time of COVID-19? What role does our leadership activity have in advancing re-imagined notions of “progress?” efforts today?

A call to action

In reflecting on what is required of each of us today, she shared, “It is time to value digital productivity, value partnership beyond results in a state of emergency and time to have critical contingency plans to support employees.” Namanda’s charge to you is to consider your commitment (individually, organizationally, and globally). She reminded us that a commitment regarding work right now (situational awareness) may require we ask new questions about how we proceed (privileging day-to-day experience), what defines productivity (building a new narrative), and how to innovate in new and creative ways (embodiment of our work). Her final charge: “Those who find a common solution to this will progress and yield results or will find weaknesses that they will learn from.”

 

*The Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders is a program of the U.S. Department of State with funding provided by the U.S. Government and administered by IREX. Kansas State University is a sub-grantee of IREX and has implemented U.S.-based Leadership Institutes as a part of the Fellowship. For more information about the Mandela Washington Fellowship, please visit the Fellowship’s website at www.mandelawashingtonfellowship.org.

Subscribe By Email

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.