Swamped with your writing assignments? Take the weight off your shoulder!
expected to come to class having read course material and written an approximately 700-1000 word (3-4 (double-spaced) pages) reflection about the material. These reactions should reflect course discussion, be properly cited in APA format referencing the weekly readings, and show an attempt to grapple with the course material through their analysis. These reaction essays are essentially ways for us to talk to each other one on one about your intellectual development. I want to know what you think is important, confusing, wrong, or noteworthy in the readings and why (hence the citations), because it helps me understand the materials I’m using, the lectures I’m using, and where you’re at. I am looking for you to really dive into the readings, integrate the texts into your own thoughts, and provide your own analysis. There’s no rubric, no “wrong” analysis per se, but we’ll have a conversation about it via your feedback.
For this reaction essay I would like for you to focus on the following, although you are certainly not limited to these topics. Also, you are not required to answer all of these questions, this is meant to provide some guidance and highlight some of the main take aways from this module for you to ponder as you write this reaction essay:
Why do you think behavior and trait-based theory of leadership are still prevalent today? What is a critique of the different leadership theories in your organizational context? Do you think critical performativity or critical discourse might be ways to provide a counter-discourse to these dominant models? What does a critical performativity approach to organizational leadership look like? What do you think of the notion of critical performativity as a method? Discourse analysis? As Alvesson and Spicer suggest it is the occasions of leadership that could be the units of analysis, not an individual who is a leader. What do alternatives to leadership look like which necessarily lack the ascribed labels of leader and follower? Alvesson and Spicer/Karreman are further suggesting that there can be a study of leadership without leaders and that if we want to really get at the underlying social conditions and complexity of context in which leadership happens, leadership needs to be separated out as something that only resides in and emulates from a leader and examined in its own right. Do you think this could influence leadership science in the future?
*****There is one more text that I have in person, so I will take a picture of the two chapters when I get a chance. However, it is not needed to complete enough of the question. Please use some direct quotes as needed. Otherwise, any of the questions in the prompts can be used/answered.*****