“Donoghue begins by challenging the oft-repeated declaration that liberal arts education in general and the humanities in particular face a crisis, a word that suggests an interruption of a normal state of affairs and the possibility of restoring the natural order of things.

‘Such a vision of restored stability,” says Donoghue, “is a delusion” because the conditions to which many seek a return – healthy humanities departments populated by tenure-track professors who discuss books with adoring students in a cloistered setting – have largely vanished. Except in a few private wealthy universities (functioning almost as museums), the splendid and supported irrelevance of humanist inquiry for its own sake is already a thing of the past. In “ two or three generations,” Donoghue predicts, “humanists . . . will become an insignificant percentage of the country’s university instructional workforce.’”

My interest in all of this, of course, traces back to the cultural factor. I agree with Donoghue’s logic, and his evidence is enough for me to be onboard with the idea that the Academy’s original, humanist, liberal arts roots are rotting from the inside out, from xylem to phloem. However, I’m less concerned about the fact that this is happening, than why it is happening. And I’m less concerned about why it is happening, than determining what societal elements have changed to allow this shift. What values have we set aside and which have taken their place? Is this a sign that we are comfortable ignoring our souls, so long as we fatten our wallets?

Essentially this issue raises the question (and requires an answer to): What is the purpose of life?

Comfort or inquiry? Body or mind?

The irony, to me, is that while this issue begs the question, it also represents our diminishing capacity to answer it.

What makes that crucial difference between a leader and an effective leader? One study out this month[1] suggests that the key is leadership self-efficacy, which the authors perceive to be

“a person’s judgment that he or she can successfully exert leadership by setting direction for the work group, building relationships with followers in order to gain commitment to change goals, and working with them to overcome obstacles to change.”[2]

This study is predicated on the observation that people with “strong self-efficacy beliefs are likely to be more motivated to pursue action, contribute more effort towards those actions, and persevere to a greater degree in the face of obstacles.”[1]

The authors, having grounded themselves in this vein of leadership theory, set out to develop a taxonomy which systematically deconstructs what constitutes leadership self-efficacy and examine how it can be related to leadership effectiveness.

Readers who are looking for insight into their own leadership brand and how they regard themselves as leaders might find this study moderately interesting. Of course, this text’s true moxie will be realized by those investigating how they can help those around them (or “below” them) develop as leaders. If you take to heart that the greater the sense of self-efficacy, the greater the effectiveness of the leader, you’re bound to realize that the simplest tactic to leadership development is to provide more opportunities to develop a strong sense of self-efficacy, which in turn helps one to mature as a leader.

This study, of course, goes beyond these broad generalizations and drives down to the basic atoms of leadership self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness, providing savvy readers the intellectual capital they need to start building leaders from scratch.

From a rhetorical perspective, this study also begs the question: how much of leadership is confidence? Or, can false confidence translate into authentic leadership effectiveness? Are these authors the first to discover what could become known as the leadership placebo?

—–

[1] David Anderson, et al., “A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership,” Leadership Quarterly 19, no. 5 (2008). {Link}

[2] Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215?235. {Link}