The Summer of 2013, I was an Orientation and Welcome Leader at FAU. What this basically means is that when Freshmen students (and sometimes Transfer students) came into FAU for Orientation, I was part of the welcoming wagon for the University (more specifically, I was like their student liaison for the two days). The highlights of being an Orientation Leader, or at least one of the most significant highlights was holding “Parliament” meetings/groups (parliament is what some have called a group of Owls, and since students at FAU are “Owls”…. you get it). In these parliament meetings, the Orientation Leader (each parliament had only either one or two) had a group of roughly 12-27 students, and Orientation Leaders had various parliament groups throughout the Summer. I can’t decide if I was, but I feel like some of the things I did back in those times weren’t really me (although I had a great time). Perhaps it has to do with the type of thinking and behavior I employ nowadays (much more serious and more judicious), but I wonder how much of that stuff was an “act”? Like, I acted leaderly because I was in a position that required it.
I know some of my colleagues had great issues “controlling” their parliament groups, but it never felt like I had to control anything. It’s likely that by then they were already socialized into conforming and going along with a moderately benign authority figure. I personally have never liked being a figure of authority intentionally, though I see reason to enact in such a way more so nowadays; I have found myself enacting as such in my take/study to be a teacher. When I teach nowadays, it could be said I put further effort into an “act” than I did when I was an Orientation Leader. I am considerate, but assertive; opinionated, but to draw out thought (from my students).. This act is strange, because I know it is contrived, but I mean with all intention to do it. I wonder, how often is leadership contrived, and is that a good thing? I recall in my past, people who were in leadership positions, but their leadership style seemed so unnatural, even if contrived (which I couldn’t tell most times: they were good at keeping this unapparent). They clarified certain things that seemed to need no clarification for the group; they reviewed all necessary duties at the end for the group; and they had what seemed to be a contrived but somehow genuine smile about all that they did — and it’s bothersome. Strangely, I do this all nowadays as a teacher, but I don’t want to appear as if I’m contriving, which I am. If I am, and others know it, would that change their perception of me? If I wasn’t, like Luffy, but thought that I was or should have, would that change their perception of me? I wonder how much of leadership is “other”-based, “other”-created, and how much is self-asserted, self-originated….