Class Sunday night was really relevant for me. Is leadership innate or learned? If both, which skills are innate and which are learned? The conversation suggested that communication is vital to effective communication, but being able to communicate effectively can be learned. Passion on the other hand is something that makes a leader good, and it's really difficult, if not impossible to teach passion. These are just two examples. But they are important characteristics to think about when selecting incoming leaders.
Hillel is going through the process currently of selecting the new board for the 2013 term. The questions the interview committee have to help them determine the type of leader in front of them. Is this someone who has potential, who can be molded into an executive position later? Has this person learned what they needed to on general board to qualify them for an exec position? Are they ready for the demands that Hillel board requires?
A few decisions have already been made, including who will be the new executive board. And some of the decisions have me worried. From my experience with these people, they don't seem to have the best communication skills or work ethic. Some of them have not impressed me with their execution of events or showed me that they are exec board ready. It seems that some of these people have a lot of learning to do. And while learning is a good thing, and as leaders we should always be learning and changing our styles, having this much to work on is disconcerting for top leadership in a student organization.
I am not the only person with these opinions of these newly selected leaders. And these opinions have been expressed to the selection committee, and the committee agreed with the opinions. Yet, even after conversations about qualities in the new exec board, the decisions that were made reflect the committee ignoring the previous conversations. This says a lot to me about leadership style. If you have already agreed that this person is not the best one for the job, yet chose them anyway, how are you improving the organization? Do you value this position, or are you filling it because you have to with this person because they are the best of the worst?
Did you select them solely because their interview was good? Did you ignore all previous leadership experience? Did you consider the thoughts and opinions of the people who worked with this leader before? How can you judge a person's effectiveness from a single interview, weighing that interview above all previous experience? Did the thought of rejecting them and their reaction frighten you into choosing them? Is that a good reason to select someone to run your organization?
I think all characteristics of a person should be considered and the fear of their reaction from not getting the position should not cause you to select them. They should be the very best, especially if they are competing with five other people for this same position. Some aspects of leadership can be learned, but before you fill a high position in an organization, a lot of those aspects should be mastered. Yes, leaders should continue to learn, but when in a position to mentor and train other leaders, the mentor should be the best possible example for these flowering leaders.
Hillel is going through the process currently of selecting the new board for the 2013 term. The questions the interview committee have to help them determine the type of leader in front of them. Is this someone who has potential, who can be molded into an executive position later? Has this person learned what they needed to on general board to qualify them for an exec position? Are they ready for the demands that Hillel board requires?
A few decisions have already been made, including who will be the new executive board. And some of the decisions have me worried. From my experience with these people, they don't seem to have the best communication skills or work ethic. Some of them have not impressed me with their execution of events or showed me that they are exec board ready. It seems that some of these people have a lot of learning to do. And while learning is a good thing, and as leaders we should always be learning and changing our styles, having this much to work on is disconcerting for top leadership in a student organization.
I am not the only person with these opinions of these newly selected leaders. And these opinions have been expressed to the selection committee, and the committee agreed with the opinions. Yet, even after conversations about qualities in the new exec board, the decisions that were made reflect the committee ignoring the previous conversations. This says a lot to me about leadership style. If you have already agreed that this person is not the best one for the job, yet chose them anyway, how are you improving the organization? Do you value this position, or are you filling it because you have to with this person because they are the best of the worst?
Did you select them solely because their interview was good? Did you ignore all previous leadership experience? Did you consider the thoughts and opinions of the people who worked with this leader before? How can you judge a person's effectiveness from a single interview, weighing that interview above all previous experience? Did the thought of rejecting them and their reaction frighten you into choosing them? Is that a good reason to select someone to run your organization?
I think all characteristics of a person should be considered and the fear of their reaction from not getting the position should not cause you to select them. They should be the very best, especially if they are competing with five other people for this same position. Some aspects of leadership can be learned, but before you fill a high position in an organization, a lot of those aspects should be mastered. Yes, leaders should continue to learn, but when in a position to mentor and train other leaders, the mentor should be the best possible example for these flowering leaders.
RSS Feed