Running head: REFLECTIVE JOURNAL: LEADING CHANGE

Reflective Journal:
Leading Change

Leezel Ramos
Seattle University
STML 5740 Leadership in a Pluralistic Society
Dr. Brenda Johnson
February 8, 2014

REFLECTIVE JOURNAL: LEADING CHANGE

When I reflect on my own leadership, I compartmentalize them into three distinct

functional areas in my life including 1) community organizing, 2) work and professional setting,
and 3) personal leadership in mentoring relationships. I try to approach my leadership in any of
these areas with a social justice lens and had looked forward to how the book would further my
understanding of leading within that mindset. The initial premise of the book definitely outlines
great points, but as it progressed it became more difficult to read. The later examples and
selected language used was very triggering for me which left me reluctant to write this reflection.
Positive
Leading Change began outlining values that I could relate to most to community
organizing. The author speaks about trust, integrity, listening, and respect for followers. One in
particular highlight was the story about the transformation of the Girl Scouts logo that implied,
unity without conformity. That line instantly connected to my observations of how the Filipino
American community struggle to gain political and mainstream visibility. Immigrant (first
generation), and usually elderly, leaders within our community try to lead under the value of
unity. First generation defines unity as one-ness, to run organizations functionally within the
kapwa (seeing myself in you, seeing each other in one another) and, if elected, entact utang na
loob (debt of gratitude; I scratch your back, you scratch mine) framework. However, over the
years that hasnt resonated with U.S. born (second generation) rising leaders. There is a deep
tension between the two groups that goes beyond organizing and has manifested into family
dynamics, influence in how youth are guided through school and their career development, and
has shaped a harden divide in political ideology across the community. I do recognize that there
are cultural politics at play with complex layers of residual colonial mentality, U.S. elitism,
adultism, and perpetuation of the model minority myth which may explain the two different
ways these groups mobilize for civic engagement. I think the book finally gave me language to

REFLECTIVE JOURNAL: LEADING CHANGE

describe the approach folks in my generation would identify with in regards to unity: solidarity,
progressive, unity without conformity. Supporting operational practices and political figures
that reflect my values with a critical understanding of how the world functions.
Lately I have been reflecting about my particular role in the community organizing space,
trying to understand my purpose in the trajectory of justice within the space I have chosen to
serve in. The book mentions the title chief transformational officer, which is something I have
never heard before. When one seeks to address systematic changes by disrupting it while lifting
others in targeted efforts, I think of being this CTO. Its amazing the relief and sharpened sense
of understanding when the right words are used to describe it. This liberation is renewing and
having since left my community work in San Diego, Im eager to take on Seattle.
Critique
There was a turning point in the book for me. I was indifferent to the strong reference to
Jesus in the beginning and I could not engage with the authors long references to mostly
business leaders, but I didnt think much of it at the time and pressed on with the book. The first
blatant triggering moment was when the author said, [Mohammed Reza Pahlavi] tried to
change Iranian culture by bringing the country up-to-date a bit: giving women a few rights,
taking away some power of the clergy, introducing Western education and material goods
[but] he failed completely to alter Irans underlying fundamentalist Islamic values. What this
implied to me was 1) Iranian culture is inherently bad/negative/lesser than/inferior, 2) the
authors cheeky tone with giving women a few rights is insulting, and 3) the pro-Western push
in schools reminds me of Western imperialism and cultural genocide.
I was uncomfortable with the author also encouraging, change [to be] approached from a
stakeholder viewpoint. Which to me, begs the question what about change approached from

REFLECTIVE JOURNAL: LEADING CHANGE

the viewpoint of those most marginalized? And not the assumption of what they need, but an
actual compassionate understanding of the lived experiences by those pushed to the edge of
society? This is where my internal warning alarm went off. I question this source of resistance
to the Rushmorean approach is so deeply rooted in our collective psyches, experiences, and
assumptions because it does not directly refer to dominate culture: whiteness. He continues
musing, Nancy Reeves suggests that women may be natural to [value-based leadership] because
they have been outside the status quo ante, and are free to marshal historic exclusion for positive
ends Women have not learned, [and] therefore do not have to unlearn If she is correct, that
much misused word diversity has a practical application. I am led to think that maybe this book
wasnt written for me, but the author had intended to address this for those not of my social
identity.
Another problematic pattern I noticed was similar to a former school counselor I used to
work with professionally. When a student did well, the counselor contributed it to their
individual success and ability to assimilate. When a student did not meet their expectations or
demonstrates a negative quality, this counselor contributed it to the students culture just like
how the authors refers to Hispanics, Northern Africa, and Arabs in his examples. Yet the author
argues that this isnt cultural imperialism in an entitled self-righteous tone.
I strongly disagree with the logic of proving ones point by over-generalizing and then
disavowing an entire people, place, or religion. Its as if to effectively lead within the authors
framework, the majority has to also benefit from the process before enacting change to uplift
those who are without privilege instead of initiating change because those at the bottom deserve
better. This prioritizes dominate culture by playing appeasement politics which is a loaded topic
in itself that I cannot endorse in the pursuit of justice.