forbes.com
Leadership Awareness Gap Highlighted in University Course
A leadership course at Fairleigh Dickinson University used a three-question test to assess students' knowledge of their organizational context, revealing a significant gap in awareness of colleagues and support staff, highlighting the need for enhanced leadership training to bridge this disconnect.
- How does the inclusion of a bonus question about personal details of the three individuals reflect upon the broader need for human connection within organizations?
- The results highlight a critical disconnect between leadership and the broader organizational ecosystem. While familiarity with high-ranking officials is relatively high, awareness of those in supporting roles is surprisingly low, suggesting a potential lack of connection and understanding across organizational levels. This lack of awareness can hinder collaboration and overall organizational effectiveness.
- What does the disparity in correct answers between questions about the university president and the security guard reveal about organizational awareness among leaders?
- A leadership course at Fairleigh Dickinson University assessed students' knowledge of their organizational context, revealing a significant gap between those in leadership roles and their awareness of colleagues and support staff. The test, comprising questions about the university president, classmates, and a security guard, showed a high success rate for the president's name (50-88%), a moderate success rate for classmates' names (72-93%), and a very low success rate for the security guard's name (0-9%).
- What are the potential long-term consequences of a lack of awareness of support staff and colleagues among leadership, and how might future leadership training address these issues?
- This study underscores the need for leadership development programs to emphasize the importance of understanding the entire organizational structure, not just senior management. Future leadership training should incorporate exercises and initiatives to foster closer connections between different levels of the organization, improving communication and collaboration. The long-term impact of such training could be a more cohesive and effective work environment.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing centers on the author's personal experience and the results of their leadership test, which overshadows the broader implications of the question posed: 'What do you know – that you should but probably don't – about your organization?' The emphasis on personal anecdotes potentially diminishes the importance of more objective assessments of organizational knowledge.
Language Bias
The language is generally neutral, but the use of phrases like "Damn near nobody" and the overall tone expresses a somewhat condescending attitude towards those who did not know the names of the individuals mentioned. More neutral phrasing could strengthen the message.
Bias by Omission
The text focuses heavily on the author's personal anecdote and leadership test, omitting broader context about organizational knowledge and its importance. It doesn't explore different organizational structures or the varying levels of importance of knowing individual staff members depending on role and organizational size. This omission could mislead readers into thinking that personal knowledge of every staff member is universally crucial for effective leadership.
False Dichotomy
The narrative sets up a false dichotomy between those interested in personal details of an organization and those who are not. It assumes that only those interested in such details will find the anecdote valuable, neglecting the potential for the underlying message about leadership to resonate with a broader audience.
Gender Bias
The anecdote does not contain any overt gender bias. However, the lack of diversity in the examples used (primarily male names) might subtly reinforce existing gender imbalances in leadership discussions.