Dugan’s (2017) architecture of leadership theory (picture above) reminds me of something eye-catching on the first days of living in Manhattan: typical form of houses. Something different from what we have in Iran. Although the structural elements - footing, foundation, and frames- are the same, they were formed in different ways. In the Iranian traditional house model (not modern), a big yard that signifies heaven is located at the center surrounded by constructed spaces mostly out of hard materials like bricks and concrete with high walls which make it strong, invisible, and impenetrable. In contrast, what I saw of the typical houses in Manhattan the constructed space (mostly wooden) is surrounded by back and front yard as an open space separated from neighboring lots by hidden walls in people’s minds. Bringing this, I am not concluding that local house architecture resembles the theory of leadership in different contexts since there would definitely be lots of functional explanations for that. However, I am analogically wondering just like Dugan’s (2017) definition of leadership as paradigmatically driven, socially constructed, value-based, and interdisciplinary, the difference in house forms comes from the difference in what people know (ontology), how they know it (epistemology), and how they capture it (methodology) that affects their view of inside and outside and the way they build their surrounding environment. The consistency between these three brings different contexts-of course with hundreds or thousands of years of history- with unique and quality architecture and independence of perspective (Ospina & Uhl-Bien, 2012) that may not work in other contexts.
As an urban planner whose works are focused on public space beyond the house private space, I take Crevani's (2015) leadership practices-framing, positioning, and resonating- as a lens to observe the city space. Framing “as creating context for making meaning of situations [or] as a process in which reality itself is being constructed” (p.195) reminds me of the houses’ window view. The way that you make meaning of the outside world would be different depending on the number, size, and location of the windows. Windows frame your view of the surrounding environment. But be mindful, in many contexts, values like gender, religion, etc. may limit wide framing (Ospina, 2016).
Positioning “as commitment as what people can/can’t or should do [as a result of] relations and configurations” (p.197) reminds me of “land use desirability” in urban planning. Like positioning in leadership that reflects on engaging with the conversation pattern and avoiding limiting others’ space in dialogue, urban desirability concerns the harmony of a house (e.g height and form) with surrounding nature, urban form, and pattern. The difference between position and role (in terms of flexibility) in relational leadership resonates with me as I see this difference between form and land lot of the house in urban planning. As such, just like collective leadership, to have an inclusive city/community, humility, learning, and vulnerability outside of the conventional boundaries need to be incorporated (Ospina, 2016)
Resonating as a way of working to make bridging, development, recognizing strong emotions, connection happen also makes sense to me as it is similar to the concepts of consistency and dependency in urban land use planning. Consistency means activities in an urban zone should be compatible with each other in terms of scale and activity. We never put a large-scale industry in a residential area (neighborhood) as they are neither consistent in terms of sound and smell nor dependent in terms of relationship. Each of them has its own separate ways and ripples. It seems as if they cannot co-author the conversation, recognize the emotions, and reach a common destination (Crevani, 2015). Despite what it seems, this does not necessarily happen in ordered cities with top-down standards and checked streets that usually host disconnected citizens lacking sense of belonging. It has innovatively happened in organic cities during history as people construct their houses in dialogue with their neighbors. That is how relational leadership works by “producing direction in an organic fashion, not in linear one” (Crevani, 2015, p. 208).
That said, now you may want to read this Ospina’s (2016) quote below twice; one time fill in the blanks with leadership and one time with city/community. And then think if it is worth reconstructing our house from footing in order to frame, position, and resonate collectively:
________ is about facilitating joint work to build a new reality[life] where new frames and unforeseen actions emerge. When the group jointly owns these frames and solutions and puts them at the service of the common good, we see collective _______ happening in the public realm (p.6).
コメント