Leadership theories and frameworks

Sustainability

Phase 3 Discussion Board

The article that I have selected is "A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science," by Turner et al. (2003). The authors advocate for a system that allows scientists to fully understand "the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere." The authors argue that current vulnerability assessments are insufficient, and move the discussion towards an enhanced framework.

Sustainability science is defined as "an emerging field of research dealing with the interactions between natural and social systems, and with how those interactions affect the challenge of sustainability: meeting the needs of present and future generations while substantially reducing poverty and conserving the planet's life support systems" so this paper fits in with key elements of that definition. First, the paper reflects the need to understand the planet's life support systems in a complex way. The interactions between elements of these systems are complex, but understand the interdependencies is critical to predicting future outcomes and finding solutions to either mitigate the negative consequences or to avoid them altogether.

The paper builds on the basic vulnerability framework that focuses on hazard-exposure-sensitivity-impacts as a pathway to understanding vulnerability. The authors build complexity into this model to more accurately reflect the real world vulnerabilities that sustainability science seeks to understand. The authors elaborate on the underlying thinking behind sustainability science and vulnerability analysis as well, in order to simply complexity.

Overall, the authors have based their work specifically on sustainability science, and therefore they have a clear understanding of the idea of sustainability science and its underlying aims. They are working towards models within the framework of sustainability science that will help make the science more useful in dealing with the challenges that we will face in the 21st century. The authors do this with clarity, and a well-structured paper that explains their methodology and the rationale behind it.

Phase 3, Discussion Board 3

The NHLBI report on obesity uses the body mass index (BMI) as a measure of obesity and overweightness, setting levels that essentially define obesity in terms of weight of the individual relative to their expected weight given their height and age. The measure is crude, and has come under critique, but is still the one that is recommended for use by health care practitioners (NHLBI, 1998). In obvious self-contradiction, obesity is described both as a disease and as a condition where "energy intake exceeds energy expenditure over a prolonged period of time" (Wilding, 2001).

Given the definition of obesity, it is clearly neither a disease nor something caused at the societal level, but rather the end product of a series of individual choices. One may argue that the prevalence of food and the necessity of driving in most communities makes it easier to become obese, but there is no lack of information about proper diet and exercise options, and this again returns the issue to one of individual decision-making. This choice is enabled at times by a view that obesity is a disease or handicap, something out of control of the individual, a view that lets the individual feel that their obesity was predestined or out of control. Yes, there are issues with things like a lack of healthy food options in poor communities, but those are crutches. Immigrant communities often eat healthy in impoverished circumstances by virtue of maintaining their traditional diets. Just because a choice is difficult, does not mean that it isn't a choice.

The natural science perspective holds that one's environment is a factor -- where eating options are poor, obesity is easier. Ultimately, I don't buy this argument. Fast food and junk is available in every community in the United States; some people choose to avoid it. I have seen where immigrant communities with little money have no real obesity issues because they choose not to eat the fat-laden junk food -- environment might matter in terms of permissiveness but that's about it. The sociological argument places the blame on "society" for individual problems. That's even sillier -- society is not an entity that can be held responsible, so then you have a problem where nobody is responsible, which is awfully convenient.

From an economic perspective, people make choices in terms of their spending money, and there is little doubt that junk food provides the most calories per dollar. The problem of course is that one need not choose the most calories per dollar, but the optimal diet per dollar, which is not the same thing. Seeking the most calories per dollar is self-destructive no matter how much money you have, because invariably even for the poorest people that will be more calories than they need.

My research is about social issues, not about individual choices. I am far from a scholar on obesity, but we all make our own choices in life, and even the definition of obesity makes it clear that it is a condition born of personal choice. Just because there are influencers doesn't mean you have to follow them -- we have free will.

Phase 3, Discussion Board 3

I love the opening sentence: "Obesity is a broad area." Is it also a heavy subject? Perhaps I am biting off more than I can chew?

I definitely struggle to understand the relationship between sustainability science and obesity, as the former is concerned with human survival, and the latter is not related to that, but to quality of life for affected individuals. Obesity is not a certainty of human existence in the same way that the necessity of food and water systems is. In a tangential way, we can examine the relationship between the mainstream agribusiness system and sustainability, as there seems to be significant problems there.

Obesity is a concern for companies to the extent that obesity has significant health costs, and companies want to minimize such costs (health insurance, lost time due to sickness). Most companies do not really have a good plan, though some will encourage workers with fitness center memberships or some other token effort. Current efforts from companies, however, are pretty poor on the issue of obesity -- there is no scholarly research on corporate response to obesity, which highlights a lack of action.

Corporations respond to economic considerations -- managers seek to maximize shareholder wealth. Obesity comes with a high cost, both medical costs and reduced productivity (Ludwig & Pollack, 2009), which should have the attention of business much more than it does. While many organizations see obesity as a cost of doing business -- in particular those companies operating in the fatter areas of the U.S. -- a few companies are tackling the issue more aggressively. They must, ahem, weigh the cost of obesity with the cost of obesity prevention for their employees. Where companies encourage bicycle commuting, healthy eating options, provide gyms and offer other such solutions, they are seeking to lower the cost of obesity to their business. This is how companies will be encouraged to take more action, when they find that they can lower their costs through prevention, and that having an obese workforce is not an inevitability at all.

Phase 3 Discussion Board

Situational leadership is understood as leadership that changes style depending on the situation. This means that there is no one true leadership style that works under all circumstances, and that leaders need to adapt their style to each unique situation (MindTools, 2014). Authentic leadership is characterized by honesty, transparency, drive, and a long-term vision. Authentic leaders are genuine, and do not change personality (Kruse, 2013). There is no inherent conflict between these two -- to assume that conflict exists is a false dilemma facility. The reality is that situational leadership reflects leadership styles and approaches, while authentic leadership is about personality. There is nothing that says adapting your style to the situation is inauthentic, and nothing that says authenticity precludes one from adapting to different circumstances. Leaders' personalities in the real world are seldom oversimplified caricatures. So in light of the fact that these two leadership theories do not represent a like-to-like comparison, there is neither conflict nor overlap between them. A situational leader can be entirely inauthentic -- an actor -- or entirely authentic as someone who legitimately possesses a range of leadership traits and skills that are used in different ways for each situation.

Situational leadership, in theory, should improve the performance of leaders. The idea is that each situation should have a leadership style that works best, and the best leaders are able to adapt to that reality. They lead according to the best leadership style, and in general this should lead to better results. Behavior theory understands leadership as a set of behaviors that guide people -- those behaviors will work different under different circumstances. So when situational leadership is applied to behavior theory, it is believed that the leader should adapt behavior to suit the situation, in order to maximize results. Subordinates should be governed according to this -- there are different ways to develop subordinates, and this should be part of the development program at a company. Further, subordinates should learn a wide range of leadership skills so that they, too, can adopt a situational leadership style when the times comes.

Phase 3, Discussion Board 2

Age should be expected to influence a preference of leadership style. Different leadership styles have been in vogue over the years, and whatever style a leader learned when first in the workforce is likely to be influential throughout their career. Traditionalists, though there probably aren't too many left, would likely favor a directing style of leadership, since that generation came from more of a command-and-control perspective. Baby Boomers may retain some of that influence, though they began to adapt to different approaches, in particular a more delegating style of leadership. I see later generations moving towards supporting and coaching, with almost no directing, at least as a preference. Such generations are much more likely to have grown up with an educated workforce in which they could place trust, and to prefer a higher level of autonomy in their work situations.

Apparently gender also affects leadership style. There has been quite a bit of literature discussing gender differences in leadership (Eagly, 1990; Gardiner, 1999; Kushell, 1986)

. There is a lot of support for the idea that females are more drawn towards supporting, coaching leadership styles, and are not oriented towards directing in particular. Men also coach, but are probably less supportive and likely have a slight preference for directing, to the extent that directing is something leaders even do anymore -- they do it, but without the authoritarian edge of past generations.

Situational leadership has to take into account age and gender. On age, Hersey and Blanchard specifically note that maturity of the subordinates is an important determinant of the optimal leadership style. This means that age is specifically a factor in situational leader. But subordinates of all types have their preferences in leadership, so that females, different ethnic groups, education levels and other demographic factors should all be incorporated into situational leadership -- different groups will respond in different ways to different leadership styles, absolutely.

Phase 3 Discussion Board 3

Five experts would be a) an expert on the doctoral process, b) subject matter experts, c) experts on work-life balance. Probably the first two will need more than one expert. The idea is to build my skills in the subject matter through experts. But there are a lot of challenges in this process. I guess I don't really have an answer here, but it's a good question to think about.

I actually haven't read too many supertexts. Most of them are more for a literature student I would have thought. I've read the Odyssey and Iliad, and some Shakespeare stuff. I downloaded the Prince but haven't read it yet and the same with the Art of War. While I don't doubt such works are influential, I think there is a contradiction inherent in saying that these works have had tremendous influence on Western culture and that simultaneously they stimulate original thinking. Actually, their ideas are hundreds of years old, and firmly embedded in our culture. They obviously would have stimulated original thinking in their day, and perhaps for a while afterwards, but at this point they cannot, because their ideas are firmly embedded in our culture. Original thinking would involve reading works that are contrarian to these supertexts.

Sample clearly finds supertexts more important than modern periodicals, because of the proven timeliness and contribution these works have made to our society. We can read these works and see how the ideas contained within have influenced the world today. In this, I completely agree with Sample -- too much modern writing is throwaway stuff and it is probably better to let time curate your reading, if you want to read things of significance.

Phase 3

Good leaders can fail. Sometimes their "goodness" is situational, and for the situation in which they failed they were actually not good leaders at all. However, there are also other factors. Good leaders are all about their minds -- what they conceive and how they execute their ideas and vision. Sometimes these leaders lack the resources to succeed; other times success was an impossibility. You can consider wars, or their sporting equivalents, and see that sometimes talent of an army (or team) is too much for the other side to overcome, regardless of leadership. Did it matter how good Japan's leadership was in WW2? Not once the U.S. got the bomb, it didn't. Leadership is but one of many factors that go into success, so a good leader can fail if the other factors are not in place.

Most leadership theories are focused on the drivers of success, but by omission they do highlight why good leaders can fail. If the circumstances that lead to success are not in place, failure occurs. Situational leadership highlights the need for adaptability, for example, but most other leadership theories focus on specific types of leadership that might be good sometimes, but are unlikely to work every time. I have no enjoyed too much time in leadership, and therefore do not have any failures on my hands, but doubtless given enough opportunities, almost any leader will experience failure. What the leader does about that will be the true test of their long-term capabilities as leader.