Home > Creativity, education, leadership, research, Teaching > A Systems and “sense-making” perspective on leadership

A Systems and “sense-making” perspective on leadership


The five dimensions of meta-leadership as deve...
Image via Wikipedia

when i hear technology, i think of the “means” of exercising control, authority, communication, and i remember how easily it has become an “end” in and of itself

in practice technology has created at least as many new, unforeseen challenges as it has solved.

it has been used as a crutch,

it has gotten in the way of exercising leadership and command.

it offers “excuses” for people trying to avoid responsibility

it has held out the possibility of better information to make better decisions, with the assumption that more info = better decisions, but more often than not we get more complexity and more confidence and certainty, but not measureably better decisions. technology can be seductive in that sense

in many ways technology becomes an end in itself, and becomes the default response to new challenges

this derives from a technocratic view of the world, a belief in reality as a knowable commodity

and yet, tecvhnology, when understood as an extension of the human CAN make measureable improvements on processes and education, but as leaders and educators i think it remains our responsibility to keep our tools in the right perspective

it is a poor carpenter who blames his tools, so we must be intentional in our use of technology and remember the limits as well as the possibilities

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Advertisements
  1. Osamu Uchida
    January 31, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    ken

    I have a rather basic question. Why is the subjective “we” not “I”?
    Are you treating the matter beyond individualism or modern “ego”?

    osamu

  2. January 31, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    i am generalizing a model of leadership which i believe applies to more than just me

  3. Osamu Uchida
    February 1, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    ken

    Thanks. Perhaps, this article’s issue is human-relationships in a “well-organized group.”
    I have taken it for personal psychological-matter, which is like some model that an individual’s ego is not necessarily “sanding-alone” but a “group” made of plural “sub-self(s).”

    osamu

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: