A500.4.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

Dr. Sheena Iyengar proposes the assumptions that Americans generally believe in the ideas of making your own choices, having more options to make better choices, and that one should never refuse more choices. Frankly speaking, I agree with her on all fronts. The most readily apparent demonstration of this is in the American consumer marketplace, and it goes further than Burger King's former tagline of "Have It Your Way." Indeed, it seems to me that more so than ever there is an emphasis not just on choices but an increasing individuality.

On one end of the choice spectrum, you may still see some businesses that pride themselves on a measure of simplicity such as the In-N-Out fast food chain, but nonetheless maintain a sense of choice by allowing adjustments to the basic choices. In-N-Out has capitalized on this by running with the mystique of their "secret menu," an official-unofficial list of extra topping and preparation options for their food. More intense opportunities for choice have come to market in recent years. Apparel companies such as Nike and New Balance have made a number of products that can have the color of every shoe component selected by the customer. Some automakers have gone this route as well, with BMW's Mini offering a number of paint and accessory options from the factory, and Toyota's Scion brand advertising their cars as both basic transportation and blank canvases for customization. The culture of choice can be seen here, and in the many different versions of any given item you may be looking for at the local Wal-Mart or Target.

When applied to leadership, this brings up some interesting implications from the standpoint of being a follower and being a leader. In the context of one of the cultures or groups that Dr. Iyengar mentions as being accustomed to everything being the same or not having nearly as many variants, the boss may be the boss and the situation may be the situation, for better or for worse. There may not be a notion of a better or worse way to conduct business. In the context of what we're assuming is the typically American culture of choice, this would be very different. A subordinate might feel like they have a choice of leadership or command climates, and depending on circumstances may speak up or may simply leave their position to join another organization. By that same token, there may or may not be an expectation of being empowered or having a say in the situation. If people are used to having a choice, they may not be used to running with the orders of a boss that doesn't practice empowerment. From the perspective of leadership, in a culture of choice I could see a greater likelihood that a leader would feel they're free to choose their methodology, subordinates, and expectations. A leader in a non-choice culture may be more inclined to proceed on with the status quo.

Her last point about never saying no to choice also brings up potential pitfalls for leading general problem solving. I could see a possibility where an individual gets faced with a situation that has one answer that would seem like the right choice to most people, but they may spend excess time and energy seeking potential alternatives due to the expectation of choice or misgivings about the "only option." This in turn may lead to "paralysis by analysis", and in seeking choices, no choice is made at all. On a related note, in a situation where for whatever reason there really is only one viable option, any expectation of choice and refusal to say no to choice, may make it more difficult for a team to come to terms with having the one solution and giving their full effort towards it.

For what it's worth, a context of choice in relation to leadership is not unto itself a good or bad thing. The good or bad that comes out of having choice is based upon the actual choices made in a given situation. It should be noted though, that the existence of choice arguably gives the greatest leverage towards positive change and improvement in a leadership environment.

A500.3.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

One can argue that information is information, wherever you may find it. However, especially in a day and age where anyone can post just about anything to the web, there is increasingly the question of quality. Add to that the academic environment's demand for intellectual rigor and originality, and it becomes more imperative to make sure your sources meet standards of credibility.

What I think sets the Hunt Library apart from a standard Google search is the scope of the information you have to sift through. Assuming a general Google search (and not the Google Scholar option), you'll likely pull up a number studies and articles, and these can very well be on legitimate news sites or academic sites. But you'll also likely end up with a scattering of Wikipedia related articles or posts from community blogs and forums that, although potentially interesting perspectives to look at, do not carry the highest guarantee of credibility for research or academic writing. It also should be noted that Google does make a measure of profit off of advertisement, and one way this is done is by posting a pertinent advertised result at the very top of the search list. In the context of a search on leadership, this will likely yield multiple results in the area of leadership courses, self help books, consultants, etc.  That's not to say Google should be entirely ruled out. If used carefully, it does have the potential to find newer information, and is very useful for finding graphics or videos you may want to use in a presentation.

With a library search, you have the benefit of a tighter scope and more rigorous standards, as the main customer of a library search is the student or an academic working under their respective considerations for work. Besides that, there are other tertiary benefits, one of which includes the availability of the library's database subscriptions. Rather than having to scour through available magazines at the local bookseller, or wading through a large body of articles in multiple subjects, you can usually select a subject database and have a list of pertinent, highly respectable sources. For example, the Hunt Library has a Defense/Military subject, which can lead me to a database for Jane's or Air University. There is also the opportunity available to contact a reference librarian and get some additional research assistance if required. While this may be a drier and less colorful means of searching, and while you may still have to sift for the pertinent information, you will have potentially less doubt about a source and may be better able to utilize it towards a paper or project.The main catch, of course, is understanding the library's or database's search functions well enough to find what you need with minimum stress.

At the very end of the day though, much of the responsibility for verifying the usefulness and legitimacy will fall upon those who use the data for their own purposes. Much of the world's information, whether obtained from Google or from the Hunt Library, has its use or place in the thoughts of the people. The key is to take appropriate measures, to include critical thinking, to ensure the information received will in fact enable the greater discovery of truth or continued advancement of our fields of study.

A500.2.3.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

In my life, I tend to place a high importance on maintaining standards of duty and reliability, the former of which may be a non-critical standard, and the latter listed in the text as a critical standard. These standards were admittedly not ones I was born with, but sometime towards the end of high school and the beginning of college it developed. Somewhere along the line, I made a generally solid effort to do what I told people I was going to do and stick with it, mainly as a matter of principle as well as trying to avoid being the very thing that often annoyed me in the form of people that didn't follow through. At this point, this was how I did my business, but it wasn't necessarily at the forefront of my thinking when I did something.

It was progressively through my time in college and ROTC that these standards became further fixed in my psyche and my daily routine. Initially, I think this developed more out of a cultivated sense that I could do better than I did in school up to that point, had I given a more sincere effort to my studies. ROTC added further incentive, as performance in the classroom and in our activities would play some role in our future career path. I fostered the mindset of “mission first”, and my mission at that time was to do well in school. However, it was during summer field training following my sophomore year that doing my duty and doing it reliably became deeply rooted. Besides getting the boot camp experience and being issued a few missing spine vertebrae, I'd taken more to not just simply doing my basic job on time, but I also became much more open to taking more up front responsibility for my achievements and my mistakes, and to going the extra mile for the greater good of the team even if it meant more effort or discomfort on my part.

In the roughly six years since then, I've held on to those same standards and continued to refine them in different contexts as an upper level college student, an officer trainee, and an active duty officer. I habitually take on additional taskings to help around the unit so long as I have the time available and my work doesn't suffer, and particularly if I can contribute one of my better developed skill sets. I make it a point to see tasks through and follow up on communication, and from this I have received a lot of positive feedback from my supervisors. Besides that, although I've found my current line of work as being a mixture of the mundane and the highly stressful, I've used these standards as my personal compass to keep me on course and press through any difficulties I come across. Although it would be very easy for me to simply stop caring and do the bare minimum to get paid, the certain something that gave me the drive to do more keeps kicking back in, refusing to settle for less. 

A500.1.5.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond

To me, the definition of intellectual perseverance can be boiled down to sticking with intellectual insights and truths in all circumstances, being ready to maintain rationality in the face of irrational opposition, and being willing to not settle but rather continue working through any confusion and tough questions to reach deeper insights. To expound, through fresh through processes or the introduction of new information, one may come upon new intellectual insights, or rediscover a truth that’s relevant to their circumstances. Although others may be insistent on sticking to a particular point of view no matter how irrational, the persevering person must be willing to stand by their truths and insights. One might compare this to instances in history when a very firmly established status quo was disturbed by new, logical insights. Examples can include the idea of a heliocentric system of planets as championed by Copernicus and Galileo in a time when the world still largely held an Earth centered view of space.

Additionally, a person may also be faced with truths presented to them that are difficult to easily comprehend or integrate into their thinking. Trying new leadership methods or learning an entirely new field of study is not easy and requires work from the outset. To truly understand a concept and know it from every direction requires one to maintain the will to ask questions, and to keep digging for answers to those very questions.

I think this type of perseverance, as well as perseverance in general, will prove important as the very nature of pursuing studies in leadership demands the mental flexibility to consider different perspectives, think through new ideas, and perhaps take a long hard look at whether or not my version of "business as usual" is the best thing I can do for my leadership development. It isn't necessarily comfortable or fun to put in the work to gain that kind of understanding. But the potential benefits are certainly there, and worth pursuing. Perhaps by building a bit of mental fortitude and maintaining a measure of solid discipline, I will be better able to add to my leadership toolkit, be better able to consider different courses of actions, and upend some of the appeals to tradition that tend to circulate around the office if circumstances don’t demand otherwise.

Thinking about my concept of a leader, I think intellectual perseverance would act as a major fixture, for I consider a good leader to be someone that can craft or select a sensible course of action, and have both the fortitude to stand by their decision if it was a truly reasonable decision, and the courage to make adjustments if the situation necessitates a change. Drawing another example from history, there were plenty of people in the military and in seats of power who thought that the airplane would never be a viable part of military doctrine. Despite risk to his career and much unfounded opposition, General Billy Mitchell continued to advocate for air power, and today many not only recognize the need for air superiority in a military operation, but day to day life in the world is enhanced by how much smaller the world becomes with routine flights moving people and commerce. This I think is also the way of the great leaders and the great innovators of our time...they were people that could find that next big idea, and run with it.