Here's Anders talking about his study about how one's leadership style can be heavily -more heavily influenced than perhaps we'd like to admit - by one's career history. This heavily statistical study draws some interesting conclusions about our ability to develop leaders, and the possibility of changing the agenda of that developmental role to surface our preconceptions about our ability to change. At least these are my preconceptions of this paper: I was sat with Anders at the start of the day, where we were talking about territorialization and leadership.
One parenthetical comment about territories: it's amusing, the performance here, to see us all dashing between rooms to catch the start of the next presentation. Presenters will be well into their stride, with PowerPoint slides and narratives, as 'stragglers' will creep into the room. I myself missed the beginning of this paper. There are so many fragments at play here: so many partialities, of understanding, of agreement, of membership of the conference track and the conference generally.
Anyway, Ander's conclusion is that "context matters", and that history matters too. So far, then, we have a singular individual and a plurality of contexts; are these potential metaphysical foundational candidates?
One parenthetical comment about territories: it's amusing, the performance here, to see us all dashing between rooms to catch the start of the next presentation. Presenters will be well into their stride, with PowerPoint slides and narratives, as 'stragglers' will creep into the room. I myself missed the beginning of this paper. There are so many fragments at play here: so many partialities, of understanding, of agreement, of membership of the conference track and the conference generally.
Anyway, Ander's conclusion is that "context matters", and that history matters too. So far, then, we have a singular individual and a plurality of contexts; are these potential metaphysical foundational candidates?
No comments:
Post a Comment