511.1.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Leadership vs. Management

    In regards to terminology, it seems to make sense that leadership personnel are in the role position to lead people, and management personnel are in a role position to manage things. I would think at first glance that we are talking about two different types of people. Individuals that perhaps carry different traits, characteristics and beliefs about who they think they are in, and of themselves, and who they think they are in relationship to their environment, may in fact, both possess similar capabilities in ways of attracting others to follow them. In some cases, people will go along with an idea, because they are of like mind. But who, out there, is of like mind? How does one know? And if inspired, can they become like minded?

    Approximately 16 years ago, it was recommended that I get in touch with a U.S. Navy SEAL Reserve Captain who was mentoring new SEAL candidates if I was interested in applying to the SEAL Challenge program. After meeting Captain Andrew Bisset, I realized that I was with the right mentor; not because he inspired me to become a Navy SEAL, but because I knew he was someone that would steer me, and support my endeavor in training to become a Navy SEAL. It was the allure of the challenges that the SEAL program offered that inspired me to volunteer and try out.

    In another sense, a manager might be able to do something similar with employees. They need to first know where in their job they can inspire their subordinate personnel to conduct business in a manner according to the manager's determination that will improve organizational efficiency, productivity, and overall morale. I feel this aspect of leadership for managers require managers to learn, if they do not already have, effective social skills. However, social skills as a leadership skill set means that you are capable to socially communicate with others, but says nothing about how to inspire to have others follow you. In Simon Sinek's (2010) TEDx talk, How Great Leaders Inspire Action, Sinek discusses how leaders in industry connect with people in the sense of sharing with them what it is they are trying to do, make, provide, or sell. Instead Sinek (2010) suggests that leaders express the reasons as to why they are doing, making, providing, or selling something. In doing so, those to be inspired, and are of like mind, will buy into those reasons, and support it far beyond typical customer response. Similarly, a manager needs to share with their subordinates, their reasons as to why they need the support of them, not just what they are trying to accomplish.

References

Sinek, S. (2010). How great leaders inspire action. Website TEDtalks Video, Retrieved from
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ZoJKF_VuA&feature=share&list=PL42F8562DCD3CCEA8.

A500.6.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

                                                           Qualitative Research

     There are a number of definitions out there that attempt to encapsulate what Qualitative Research is, but I am for the idea that it is more likely a combination of many of these definitions that provide a more holistic description of what it is. I have come thus far to believe with limited experience that Qualitative Research is a method of deriving, or extrapolating meaning out of different aspects of a specific research subject, providing greater comprehension of it's parts in order to define the whole in a way that can support quantitative data with greater understanding.
     Qualitative research entails elements such as the planning phase, or the research design that may include a naturalistic, emergent, and purposeful method (Sanders, 1997); the element of data collection that requires a subjective, open-minded and empathetic neutrality that allows for changes over time with their environment and focus of study (Sanders, 1997); and analysis of the collected data that would require the researcher to understand that each case is unique, and that a holistic approach while inquiring into the depths of the results from different perspectives, as well as allowing natural phenomena to emerge with a balanced objective/subjective disposition allows for an authentic representation of the natural complexities in context to become known (Research Guides, n.d.). It is the experienced researcher that can leverage the fine balance of knowing where to, and how to inject themselves at the right time, place and manner to collect the data necessary with minimal intrusion upon the naturally occurring data that would render the analysis of the data as genuine and trustworthy (Research guides, n.d.).
     I have been privy to such processes over the last three years in my job. I have met with and interviewed people for the purposes of acquiring what they know that may answer my boss' questions. In such cases, I would need to determine with whom I was meeting with, gather what I knew about them if anything at all, prepare the meeting area so as to create a comforting, welcoming and safe space; prepare a list of questions as a guide during our dialogue; map out a route from where they will be picked up to their drop off point at the meeting so as to minimize our group's exposure; determine what to wear that will not come off as threatening; ensure the pickup vehicle is setup to keep personnel inside not visible from outside personnel; and to finish the meeting leaving the subject feeling good, and willing to come back. This method of conducting a meeting has proven quite effective, and allows for excellent data collection throughout the meeting. Data collection would be in the form of a conversation while note taking. The conversation is open and relaxed in its atmosphere and context, however, the researcher stays mindful of the subject if they should go off track and would need to keep the conversation focused by gently steering the subject back to relative questions. Humor, appreciation, apologies, empathy, directness, and endearment are just a few techniques that must be carefully used in order to steer the meeting in the right direction, without upsetting, or making the subject suspicious or righteous, inhibiting the flow of relative data. Throughout the meeting, data such as body language, facial expressions, gestures, reactions, and overall disposition is taken into account and noted for review later. After the meetings, objective viewing, while remaining aware of the subjective nature of the subject themselves, of all documents, recordings, notes taken as well as any unique events that may have occurred during the meeting, is taken in for analysis; first for its parts individually, and then to determine its meaning as part of the whole picture in attempt to draw a final conclusion for that particular meeting. Ultimately, each meeting would be part of an on going analysis for subsequent meetings in order to paint a picture over time of the subject's overall reliability to provide honest, accurate, timely and trustworthy information. Often, a 'test' will be designed and implemented to determine if the unwitting subject is who they say they are, and can do what they say they can do.

References

Sanders, M. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers.   Website. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v9n1/hoepfl.html.

Research Guides. (n.d.). Organizing your social sciences research paper: Qualitative methods. Website. Retrieved from http://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/qualitative.

A500.5.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Critical Thinking About Critical Thinking

     My ability to think critically in a formal method utilizing specific standards and elements (Nosich, 2012) prior to MLSD500 was non-existent to my conscious mind then. Subconsciously, I feel I have been using this method to a much lesser degree, but nonetheless, to a degree. At some point, while growing in my awareness to thought, I began asking why. Once I realized the truth that came from asking that question many times, I became aware that in typical daily conversations about a wide variety of topics, the truth of it all is usually buried down deep within the pile of assumptions, presumptions, false information, skewed perceptions, disinformation, other people's experiences that did not match my own, and my own beliefs based on irreconcilable issues, or  what I have yet to completely and critically think through for myself.

     When this course introduced me to a formal method of thinking critically (Nosich, 2012), I realized that there was a process, a thorough, logical process in which I can follow and be clear of my decision to think, say and, or do what I want. If it passes this sniff test, so to speak, I can be rest assured that my decisions have been purposely and logically reasoned out. Based on this new awareness, it brings on the confidence for me to build new information and truths upon. With that, a search for truth would not have to be accessed by working through all that once buried it.

     In processing this newly acquired information, I have to admit, it has been difficult to assimilate this new method of thinking, primarily due to the obvious fact that I have been wired (by myself) to think a certain way for a very long time. However, quite the fan of wanting to change the way I think to better myself, and thus others, drives me with excitement to want to employ this new method in many areas in my life, not just professionally. It will take, first, a strong desire to change the way I think in order to be consistent enough for the change to occur. Otherwise, as with any other attempts to create a new habit, it will fall back into the recesses of the mind, and be forgotten. Since I've been thinking about my thinking already for quite some time, and the fact that I am reminded of this new critical method of thinking when I do self-reflect on my thoughts, it will be very easy (over time) to remain aware, practice, improve and successfully employ the art of thinking critically.

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the curriculum. (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

A500.4.3.RB_SiegmundWayne

Ballet Slippers or Adorable?

    When one breaks down the fundamental processes of thinking, they can come to realize, relatively easily, that life is made up of a never ending series of decisions in the moment of now. Some of these decisions are consciously made, while others are unconscious. That is to say, many decisions are made without the actual act of choosing occurring, but rather out of habit. While active choosing is that in which the conscious mind is aware it is making an active choice.
    Throughout my day as a father, husband, and co-worker, I find myself involved with others making choices almost as much as I make choices alone. Some of the decisions I come to are in part by compromise, how to emotionally handle a situation, how to carry myself in attempt to elicit a professional response, and what to focus on. But most of the time, my choices are not significantly profound, and when they are, they determine what direction my career may go, how my wife feels about our marriage, and what type of adult my daughter will become.
    I do not necessarily agree that all choices ought to be made on your own. Purchasing my first home absolutely had a profound effect on me, but it was to also have one on my wife, if not greater. Here, it was necessary to compromise; that is to make a choice while considering other factors. However, in this sense, that too was my choice alone to make. I would never choose to take my child off life support knowing my wife had the same amount of say in the matter, and in considering such, I will alone make the choice to decide to come to an agreement as to what to do.
    I find myself more often than not, when inundated with choices, to narrow down the playing field by usually a process of elimination. For me, too many options provide confusion in the sense that the subtle differences between the options are difficult to see and remember while going through the processes of decision making, or making a choice. In this case, instead of conducting a process of elimination, I shift my perception, and conduct a process of retention. It seems then the more options there are, the more of what I would choose begins to stand out. Now, if I were blind, I would probably require an adaptation to another set of senses, or standards to choose from. It may seem probable that the more choices one has, the better the chances for better choices. This may be true, but I think it would depend on the choices and the individual making the choice. Perhaps, not making a choice is the better choice.
    I have always been one to know what all my choices are before making a decision. I like to be as well informed as possible, so as to make a well informed decision. From my perspective, you can never say no to choice. You always have one, like it or not. It may not seem much of a choice from which to choose, but nonetheless, it is one.
    I found Iyengar (2010) to be somewhat insightful on the subject, and applicable to leadership under certain contexts. The implications of her comments, referring to, ‘too many choices’ (lyengar, 2010), or of ‘choices being thrust upon you’ (lynegar, 2010), upon leadership, provide opportunities. They can also present a challenge for leadership to make tough choices, while still preserving organizational cohesiveness and company vision. The idea behind 'limitless choice' (lyengar, 2010) can benefit leadership, if perceived in such a manner that will not corrupt them, or others. I cannot say I truly found her work enlightening. Much of it, I was quite familiar with. When sharing the experiment with the children and the anagrams (lyengar, 2010), I was not surprised at all by the results. In fact, I guessed what she was about to say before she said it, and more importantly, understood why.

 
Iyengar, S. (2010). The art of choosing. Website TEDtalks Video, Retrieved from
      http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing?language=en.

A500.3.4.RB_SiegmundWayne

Exploring the Hunt Library

          In order to understand what makes a resource 'scholarly' in nature, we must define what it means to be scholarly. There are a number of definitions provided by online sources, but do any offer a scholarly definition? Some definitions are,concerned with or relating to formal study or research' (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholarly); '(of a person) spending a lot of time studying and having a lot of knowledge about an academic subject' (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/learner/scholarly); 'a scholarly person studies a lot and knows a lot about what they study' (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/scholarly). It appears that a scholarly resource would be one that has been recognized by the academic community for previous, extensive work on matters that have been acknowledged as credible in scholarship; someone who has conducted very in-depth study, analysis on a particular subject, and recognized as such by a group of scholarly academic peers, such that the work may be acknowledged as scholarly work by the nature of its definition.

          Scholarly information found in the Hunt Library is typically researched, studied, and enhanced with analysis and review for meeting specific standards for publication as scholarly work. Such a site would be the 'Scholarly Commons' (http://commons.erau.edu/). When conducting a typical search for work on a specific subject in Google, there is nothing saying that the search results will be that of scholarly work. Then, of course, the question is how scholarly is the information, meaning that there are degrees of being scholarly, and is usually determined by the supporting research, and community. Further investigation on that, or those results would be required to determine if similar standards have been met, and that the work is acknowledged by an academic community as scholarly. However, this realization of understanding the difference, leads me to inquire about the one who did the work on the 'scholarly' submission. Does it require an acknowledged scholar to submit work of a scholarly nature, or can anybody submit 'scholarly' work without being considered a scholar? I would tend to think the latter based on it's definition, that scholarly work can be submitted for and accepted for publication on the merits of the work itself. However, wether the submitter is considered to be a scholar, or not in their own right, depends perhaps on the requirements, or standards of a given academic community; that is to say, the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the submitter's previous work. Also, realizing that there may be degrees of what is considered to be scholarly, there then must be the awareness of those assuming what is scholarly based on the presentation, and, or the location of the work found. An example of this could be "Junk Science, where predatory journals are also enabling the publication of much 'activist science,' publishing articles that appear to be scientific, but that could never pass peer review and be accepted and published in authentic journals"(https://scholarlyoa.com/2014/11/04/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/).

References:

Beall, Jeffrey (November 2014)."Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science". Scholarly Open
          Access. Retreived 2014-11-10.