ND: Note From the Editor

John P. Terry, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief

Winter 1999, v.15-1

Note From the Editor

Welcome to Volume 15 of New Designs, and Happy New Year to all of you.

In this first issue of 1999 we explore the theme of leadership. Leadership is often defined uni-dimensionally, as a relationship between those who lead and those who follow, neatly packaged within the confines of a specific category. For example, "Mary is a team leader on the basketball court," "Jose is the president of the student council," and so on. In this model, youth are conferred leadership status by adults who define the characteristics of leadership and limit the possibilities that do exist. A strong predisposition toward compliance is usually part of this package, even with adults-for whether they are elected, appointed, or hired, adult leaders are expected to produce positive outcomes for the group they lead.

Effective time management has long been regarded as the best approach to getting the job done. The leader/manager manages resources, including people, in the most efficacious way to squeeze the maximum amount of productivity out of the minimum amount of time. As Peter Senge says in his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, "... At its heart the traditional view of leadership is based on assumptions of people's powerlessness, their lack of personal vision and the inability to master the forces of change, deficits which can be remedied only by a few great leaders."

The result of this system in the for-profit schema is that people-employees-are treated as interchangeable slots in the production process, outcome is valued over process, and order over relationships. Examples are evident both in the human service industry and in education, where service delivery is measured in quantifiable terms, and order is valued over particpation and education.

The truth is that leadership is more complex than a set of one-way transactions between leaders and followers. This notion sets up a false dichotomy by placing an onus on the leader to succeed at leading and letting the follower "off the hook" in terms of responsibility for outcomes. It also fails to account for a broader social contract between those who are led and those who lead, for in the hurly-burly of real life leaders do not succeed unless they capture the respect and loyalty of those they serve.

Emerging in the '40s with Kurt Lewin, a leader in the social psychology of human motivation and group behavior, and extending to such contemporary writers as Stephen Covey, Margaret Wheately, Marvin Weisbord, and Peter Senge, researchers and practitioners have begun promoting a more positive view of human motivation, organizational behavior, and leadership, which emphasizes relationships, co-creation, empowerment, and a tolerance of ambiguity.

The CYD paradigm is quite comfortable with this new view. CYD supplants hierarchical, uni-directional leadership with an organic notion of relationships among members of the community or organization. This approach has the added advantage of expanding the number of opportunities for youth leadership beyond the traditional roles of class president, basketball team captain, and the like.

This issue of New Designs explores the new leadership paradigm from several important angles: organizationally-both in community-based organizations and educational institutions; as evidenced in youth workers, as they develop and nurture young people's capacities; and with youth, as they enter into relationships with their peers, with adults partners, and with their communities.

We invite your comments and submissions. Please join us in our celebration of diversity in the Spring issue, Volume 15 #2.

John P. Terry, Editor-in-Chief

NEW DESIGNS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT © 1999



	John P. Terry, Ph.D. Editor-in-Chief
Winter 1999, v.15-1
	Note From the Editor Welcome to Volume 15 of New Designs, and Happy New Year to all of you. In this first issue of 1999 we explore the theme of leadership. Leadership is often defined uni-dimensionally, as a relationship between those who lead and those who follow, neatly packaged within the confines of a specific category. For example, "Mary is a team leader on the basketball court," "Jose is the president of the student council," and so on. In this model, youth are conferred leadership status by adults who define the characteristics of leadership and limit the possibilities that do exist. A strong predisposition toward compliance is usually part of this package, even with adults-for whether they are elected, appointed, or hired, adult leaders are expected to produce positive outcomes for the group they lead. Effective time management has long been regarded as the best approach to getting the job done. The leader/manager manages resources, including people, in the most efficacious way to squeeze the maximum amount of productivity out of the minimum amount of time. As Peter Senge says in his book, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, "... At its heart the traditional view of leadership is based on assumptions of people's powerlessness, their lack of personal vision and the inability to master the forces of change, deficits which can be remedied only by a few great leaders." The result of this system in the for-profit schema is that people-employees-are treated as interchangeable slots in the production process, outcome is valued over process, and order over relationships. Examples are evident both in the human service industry and in education, where service delivery is measured in quantifiable terms, and order is valued over particpation and education. The truth is that leadership is more complex than a set of one-way transactions between leaders and followers. This notion sets up a false dichotomy by placing an onus on the leader to succeed at leading and letting the follower "off the hook" in terms of responsibility for outcomes. It also fails to account for a broader social contract between those who are led and those who lead, for in the hurly-burly of real life leaders do not succeed unless they capture the respect and loyalty of those they serve. Emerging in the '40s with Kurt Lewin, a leader in the social psychology of human motivation and group behavior, and extending to such contemporary writers as Stephen Covey, Margaret Wheately, Marvin Weisbord, and Peter Senge, researchers and practitioners have begun promoting a more positive view of human motivation, organizational behavior, and leadership, which emphasizes relationships, co-creation, empowerment, and a tolerance of ambiguity. The CYD paradigm is quite comfortable with this new view. CYD supplants hierarchical, uni-directional leadership with an organic notion of relationships among members of the community or organization. This approach has the added advantage of expanding the number of opportunities for youth leadership beyond the traditional roles of class president, basketball team captain, and the like. This issue of New Designs explores the new leadership paradigm from several important angles: organizationally-both in community-based organizations and educational institutions; as evidenced in youth workers, as they develop and nurture young people's capacities; and with youth, as they enter into relationships with their peers, with adults partners, and with their communities. We invite your comments and submissions. Please join us in our celebration of diversity in the Spring issue, Volume 15 #2. John P. Terry, Editor-in-Chief
	NEW DESIGNS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT © 1999