Last week we talked about qualities and characteristics that make up a good leader. Today we took that list and applied it to a situation. How do leaders take the skills they have to solve a problem? Presented with the question of "how do you go about changing a university's energy source from coal to gas?", we outlined the steps to take to solve the problem. Some of the most important steps were defining the problem and communication. When looking at a topic, you have to know exactly what the problem is; what exactly are the issues that the solution will deal with. In this case the problem was generally about energy consumption and that makes it an economical issue--how will we finance this change? an operational issue--what needs to be built for the new system, how will that be built? an environmental issue--how is this change going to affect the environment, what are the pros and cons? 
But the other important part of developing a solution to a problem is communication. You, as a leader, have to communicate with all of the parties involved, not only to make sure that their voice is heard, but to explain to them the decisions being made. Communication is a step that does not occur once in this process--it happens all of the time. One time communication is very important is in the defining of the problems and the generating of ideas for solutions. Here is the point where groups of all different kinds come to university leaders and make arguments for this solution or that solution. Some come in making demands while others are ready to have a discussion about those solutions. 

The difference between the two groups in my opinion is not passion but rather effective leadership skills. Both groups want to see changes made and they have their reasons for wanting those changes. But the group that comes in with a list of demands saying "make these changes or else" is very easy to dismiss completely because they are not willing to compromise. The group that comes in prepared for a discussion still has the same passion as the first group--they want to see their changes made, but this group is willing to talk about it. This group understands that while not all of their ideas will be accepted, they will be happy to have at least some of their ideas heard. And maybe if they make a strong enough case and are willing to compromise in another area, they can add another change or two to the solution. It is not the level of passion that distinguishes these groups from one another, but rather the way these groups go about expressing their passion when solutions are being discussed. 

Being a leadership class, we should at some point discuss what it means to be a leader. It is only natural to not get around to that topic until halfway through the semester, right? Well, no matter when we had the discussion, it was still a good one. We generated adjectives used to describe what makes a good leader. And while many of the ones we came up with were from our trip to Gettysburg, they still apply to leaders outside of the military and the 19th century. I used the list we generated to start my response for an application I recently filled out to become a leader on an organization I'm involved with. Below is the response I typed to the question "What is your definition of a leader? What qualities are necessary for a good leader to possess?"
A good leader is a person who communicates their dedication effectively. This means that a leader has to clearly make their point so that the listeners understand the goal and can successfully accomplish the goal at hand. Listening to what others have to say is very important to being a good communicator. How can you make a point or know the whole story in a situation if you do not hear what others have to say. By listening, a leader can judge how effectively they have communicated the mission to the rest of the organization. Dedication is another factor. A leader has to be dedicated to their goal, to their board members to themselves. If a leader is not dedicated to their own ideas, why should anyone else believe them? If a leader does not support the board, why would the board go and support the leader? If a leader is not passionate about an event, program or the organization as a whole, how can they effectively communicate the passion and dedication that it takes to run an organization like Hillel? For these reasons, a leader is a person who communicates their dedication effectively. 

This week's topic was very relevant to my life. Environmental responsibility--how to we, as humans, do our part to take care of the world? There is a teaching in Judaism called Tikkun Olam which is the idea that Jews have the responsibility to repair the world--to make it a better place when they left than when they received it because the land is not just for us, but also for the generations after us. We should not leave it up to our children and our grandchildren to clean up our messes. Therefore we much all take responsibility to do our part to make the world a better place. This can be very easily done, as we learned in class, by recycling or by switching to an alternative source of energy.
I had never heard of Marcellus Shale before class on Tuesday night. While what we talked about in class sounds like a very good idea--the resource would bring jobs and a burst in the economy to Pennsylvania--it also seems like a stop gap. This is just a resource that will last 20 to maybe 50 or 100 years. But what do we do after that? While I really like the idea of switching from oil to a natural gas like shale, I really think that it is the responsibility of this generation to not let this resource go to waste. We need to take the time while we are using this resource to find an alternative, more permanent resource. It would not be fair to leave our grandchildren or great-grandchildren with the task finding an energy source when we've used up all of the known usable energy sources. 

Here's the situation: you are hiring for a position at your workplace. You have gone through applications and have weeded out the people you do not want to interview. Phone interviews were held and from that, ten people were brought in for personal interviews. Of those ten people, four stood out exceptionally. One was a man of color, another a white female, the third a white male, and finally a woman of color. All have equal qualifications for the job, all interviewed extremely well, and all could function productively within the company. Who do you choose? 
In the United States, there have been laws enacted that make that decision for you. Affirmative action laws say that you hire the woman of color because she is a woman and of a minority race. But what if your workplace has a lot of women working there, and within your workplace, men are in the minority? Should you hire the man of color because within your community, he is the minority in the workplace? Affirmative action laws state that men are not a protected category and should not be given preference for a job over any woman, whether or not there are more or less men working at a given workplace. But if women continue to get preferential treatment in job placement over men, will men have a place in the workforce? Or will their qualifications and abilities continue to give them an advantage over women when applying for a job?

Why should the fact that I'm a woman make me more likely to get a job over a man who is just as qualified as me? While I'm sure I'd be excited to get the job, the fact that affirmative action requires a company to hire a woman or the minority when all conditions are equal, kind of takes away from the accomplishment of getting the job. 

If you decide to not follow affirmative action laws, thinking that they are out of date or no longer needed, the choice of who to hire gets even tougher. There is no body of law telling you what to do when all conditions are equal. Someone will interpret any hiring decision you make as a way to rank society--whether you hire the man over the woman could say to someone that your company does not want women in the workplace. Hiring the person of color over the white person could say that you are trying to right historical wrongs by hiring someone of a race who has been mistreated in this country. 

Whomever you hire, the process needs to be done in a way where all candidates are treated equally--we are all human no matter what we look like or believe. 

When I got the email a few weeks ago, letting me know about the upcoming events PLA was sponsoring, I immediately jumped on the opportunity to hear author Khaled Hosseini speak as part of the Distinguished Speaker Series. I had read both of his books and seen the movie The Kite Runner. What I loved so much about these works is that they were about another culture that I really had no connection to, and yet I could relate to the characters. In The Kite Runner, Amir is a young boy who deals with the issue of how to treat his friend whose family works for his. The issues of class and friendship, honesty and proudness are present throughout the book. I can definitely relate to trying to live up to a standard that I set for myself, that my parents set for me, that my friends even set for me. However, Hosseini's second novel A Thousand Splendid Suns, was more relatable for me. I went to a private all girls school for 14 years, where the idea of becoming strong independent women was drilled into our heads from day one. Reading a book from the perspective of two women who didn't have the right to be independent or the opportunity to stand up for themselves was fascinating and very interesting to read. 
Having loved the books so much, I was very eager to go to the lecture. So eager in fact that I was one of the first students to reply to the email asking who wanted tickets, that I was qualified to go to the dinner with Mr. Hosseini before the lecture. I responded to the email without thinking, saying I had to work before the lecture. But then it hit me. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity to sit in a small group and personally talk to Khaled Hosseini. I replied to the email again saying, "I don't know what I was thinking, but sign me up for the dinner" and ended up finding someone to work for me. But what are you supposed to talk about with a best selling author? 

The conversation when I walked into the room was centered around football, and the extent of my football knowledge is knowing how many points a touchdown is worth. My friends (other PLA students) and I walked in and sat down and got settled. We did the standard introduction of name, hometown, major and then the conversation went back to sports, until Dean Brady walked in. He held the conversation, asking questions, telling stories. There were a few times I wanted to jump in and contribute an anecdote that related to the topic, but by the time I figured out what I wanted to say, the point had long past. I was thoroughly enjoying listening to the highly intellectual conversation around me. Mr. Hosseini talked about going to medical school before writing, howThe Kite Runner was never supposed to be published, and the current and potential political situation in Afghanistan. It was great, until Dean Brady called me out saying, "Sarah, you're usually never shy, want to jump in with a questions?" And I turned bright red. I had no idea what to say. I had read the books a while ago and was not up-to-date on the current situation in Afghanistan. I certainly did not want to say something wrong! So, I ended up talking about what the books meant to me. How it was eye-opening to read about women who didn't have the same privileges I had, and how much these books intrigued me and my friends. 

As soon as dinner was over, and Dean Brady left, the conversation relaxed a little and we asked Mr. Hosseini if he would sign books and take pictures. As most of the group departed, my friends and I took our time gathering our stuff, talking about how cool it was to have just had dinner with Khaled Hosseini. What other 19 year-old gets to say they just dined with a best-selling author? The opportunities that PLA provides us with are truly incredible!