For posterity, I am starting this post with a reminder to myself that I am now sick (likely COVID, but rapid tests keep coming back negative), brain foggy, and this is the second weekend in a row that fascists have been trying to overthrow the government in Canada. Note to self: look back on this later and comment about how it all turned out, as well as make a note about how different areas of the country reacted and which ones were most successful. I am also tired of starting posts with “over the past two years”, but the past two years are looking like a way of gauging how well previous predictions have panned out.
First, my thoughts on our team activity and the research-informed results:
Our group identified the following as our Top Five attributes of leadership:
-
-
- Competent,
- Honest,
- Dependable,
- Straightforward, and
- Supportive.
Of the top four research-informed rankings, our group agreed with two: honest and competent.
We held one synchronous meeting and worked via Google Docs. At that meeting, we talked about how we experience leadership, rather than how we lead, which was interesting in hindsight. Our discussion revolved around how we wanted to be perceived as leaders because of how we perceived leaders we have had. We also talked about how leaders need to lead, and doers need to do. I think that our choices were informed by our composition. As a group comprised entirely of women, we also put a lot of focus on consensus, rather than debating and influencing others to our point of view, as I have experienced in groups with majority male membership. After thinking about this more for a few days, I think that our point of view as followers showed that we may not think of ourselves as leaders in a Eurocentric way (e.g. male-dominant, hierarchical). That has changed how I want to approach this course; I want to improve my leadership practice by influencing, rather than learn how to lead. We are all leaders already.
Next, my Leadership Reflections
For this post, I want to focus on leadership, competence, and dependability. These were the most important leadership attributes that stood out to me from our top five. Our list was not identical to the research-informed list, but we had a starting point, which allows us to develop from there.
The reflection prompts talked about thinking about what it means to be a “digital leader”, but I doubt it matters whether we lead in a digital space or in a face-to-face space. Leadership is leadership. Right now, and I would argue going forward, the difference is in how strong the leader’s digital skills are. To trot out my cliché again, “over the past two years” many leaders’ weak digital skills have been laid bare. Before, they might have been seen as great leaders when the tools they had at their disposal were elevator talks, in-person reading of body language, and the informality of being able to pop into someone’s office. Now, the tools they have available are only digital and if their digital skills are weak, they are hamstrung. For example, they are unable to read body language as effectively if they cannot figure out how to set up a microphone and camera. Sheninger’s point is valid when he says that “establishing relationships” (2019, para. 6) initiates sustainable change. You can certainly establish relationships digitally and then work on that change. I have done so. If you cannot figure that out using the digital tools that are the only thing you have at your disposal, you cannot be successful. Leaders who are competent also experience success.
Some leaders that I have observed have used the “ubiquitous connectivity” afforded by digital that Shenigner (2019, para. 6) described to their advantage. In digital learning, being able to leverage this level of connectivity can provide a sense of competence if leaders working in DLEs discover clever ways to use the technology available to their organizations to remain connected and responsive to learners as they build influence. Being digitally connected also means being able to maintain that connection, which leads to dependability.
The partnership, protection, and participation that Fitzgerald (2003) talked about leads to dependability that followers need from their leaders. I was intrigued by the issues that Fitzgerald discussed about “women’s leadership” (Fitzgerald, 2003, p.10) and how discussion around female indigenous leadership is absent. I was disappointed that it is seen as an alternative and not a matter of fact. It was also disappointing that research on the intersection of gender and race in educational leadership has been so marginalized and focused on (usually male) individuals (Fitzgerald, 2003).
While my thoughts on the most important attributes of digital leadership and those of my team varied from the research-informed ones, we were all very able to identify those that were important to us, which is the first step in being able to reflect on what we want to be.
References:
Fitzgerald, T. (2003), “Changing the deafening silence of indigenous women’s voices in educational leadership”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230310457402
Pillars of Digital Leadership. (2019, December 20). International Center for Leadership in Education. https://leadered.com/pillars-of-digital-leadership/
