This past week, Steven attended a panel discussion called the X's and O's of Leadership where four prominent coaches explained the role of leadership from an athletic perspective. This sounds like a really interesting panel. And while I wouldn't immediately think of athletic programs as good sources of leaders, they really do promote and develop potential leaders. Steven focused on the words of Men's Volleyball coach Mark Palvik, picking up two quotations about what a leader looks like on a volleyball court. Coach said that "A leader isn't someone who is a good athlete, but rather a force within the team that has clear vision to success, and gets other to buy into it." I agree that someone who can motivate others to pursue a clear vision is a type of leader. But I'm hesitant to say that a good player is not a leader. There are different kinds of leaders both on and off the court. Maybe the good player will inspire others to work hard and improve their skills. And maybe the motivational player might keep his or her teammates focused and working hard. Both types can be successful. Coach Palvik also stated, according to Steven that "leading by example is not leading at all." Again I'm hesitant to agree because there is more than one type of successful leader. Maybe in his experience with student athletes motivational players have been more effective. However, saying that leading by example is not leading disregards many leaders who are effective in a variety of settings. 

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. 

Honor is a word that has many definitions--privilege like it is my honor to do this, respect--we will honor him by doing that, distinction--you can earn many honors or attend an honors college. These are only three definitions, yet they all fit into how I feel right now: It is my honor (privilege) to honor (respect) the women that fought for suffrage by voting to honor (respect) President Barack Obama with the honor (distinction/privilege) of being reelected as president for another four years.  This was my first presidential election; I missed the last one by two months.

In high school, I remember Obama's last election as something that every student was passionate about--either for Obama or against him. When he was inaugurated, there was a huge crowd of students sitting in the hallway watching on television as the man some of us had helped to elect was making history by being the first African American president. Classmates of mine had joined the campaign and were "the Democrateens." They had found their place working for the Change Campaign, canvassing, flyering, and working for Obama. 

Politics have never been something I like to talk about. First, I don't feel like I know enough to be confortable having an intelligent conversation with someone about it. Secondly, so many people are so set in their ways that a conversation is pointless. Many just argue what they want to argue without hearing what the other is saying, similar to some presidential debates I've watched. Four years ago, it was hard to not talk about politics, because for the first time, it was relevant in our lives. I didn't get the same vibe this year--the youth vote didn't seem to be as prominent or as active this year. However, the issues that were being debated were very important to many people: education, health care, women's right, gay rights, the economy, jobs, stance on Iran and Israel, etc.

What I noticed this year was that people had different priorities. For some, jobs and lower taxes are what they want. Some want a stronger stance against Iran. Some prefer Obamacare and funding for education. It depends on what's relevant in your life.

I had a friend who asked why people didn't like Romney. I was baffled. You are supposed to know why you are voting for someone, and I'm glad she had an answer for that question. But it seems just as important to me to know why others are not voting for your candidate. To be an active citizen, I think you need to know the pros and cons of both candidates. It was shocking that this intelligent girl did not know why people didn't like Romney. But that wasn't relevant for her; she didn't need to know why others didn't like him, just why she did.

I am honored to have participated in this election. I am honored that this country decided to oust Akin who said "legitimate rape" and that the first openly gay senator, Tammy Baldwin, was elected. I am honored. 

This week, both Steven and Felix spoke about leadership on campus. 
Steven focused his blog on governance, commenting on the most recent PLA class where President Rodney Erickson spoke about governance at the University. He felt that this was the most "enlightening" class, as it gave him an idea of what governance should look like. Most of the time, student leaders are learning by doing. The class focused on the Board of Trustees: who are they, what do they do, and what is their purpose? The conclusions? A good board of trustees should work well with the administration toward a common goal. They should be transparent and loyal and should work to benefit their investors (teachers, students, alumni). One phrase that Steven used in his blog that I really liked was "Nose In, Fingers Out" This allows the BoT to oversee what the administration is doing without making decisions on their own and going over the head of school leaders. Steven made another good point, that an effective Board of Trustees needs to know their role within the university. If this group of people wants to be making all of the decisions, they will not work well with the administration. Also, if they let the administration do everything, there is no body to monitor the actions of school leadership. Balance is very important to governance at a large University. 

Felix spent this week's blog post commenting on the role of the University Office for Global Programs at Penn State. After describing their role on campus, he described many factors that are making it challenging for this office to function effectively on the behalf of international students. This office is supposed to help international students transition to American culture and Penn State University. Their office is underfunded and they cannot do a lot of the programming necessary to accommodate the needs of international students. They have a high turnover of staff which makes challenging to make changes. This office does do a good job of making and maintaining relationships with other countries and schools, Felix concludes that the purpose of this office should be "to internationalize the campus and ensure mutual understanding among US Students and any and all groups of international students." We both need to learn about each other. It is not enough that the international students find a home and friends at this campus; American students need to understand the culture and customs of these foreign students and help create a globally aware campus.