Unschooling Parents: Are you more inclined toward a leadership disposition or a managerial one?

[PreggieUBA2C]

I have a very distinctly defined leadership disposition: I am at the helm, looking forward to what could/might/should/ought to be. I can carry on this way indefinitely, and I would have sunk the Titanic, not for arrogance, or inability to consider the possibility of a gigantic obstacle, but because I wouldn't have noticed the daily, mundane, present-focused realities, like that no food was packed, the toilets were overflowing and nobody had been hired to maintain them, or all the onboard fauna had escaped, nobody counted the lifeboats or how many passengers there were relative to sleeping quarters. I would have seen the bright possibilities on a faraway shore, and the back end of my ship may have completely rusted out and I would have had no idea until the water began pooling around my feet, at which point, I'd be screaming, "WHY DIDN'T ANYBODY CHECK THE BACK OF THE BOAT???! CAN'T YOU ALL SEE I'M STEEEERING UP HERE? HOW CAN I SEE THE BACK WHEN I'M UP AT THE FRONT?!"

Free-learning/unschooling really works for me because I excel at guiding and inspiring. I couldn't even get my head around something like the daily implementation of a curriculum. I can design one, but to use it? Not a chance. I just completed a comprehensive curriculum and three-year education plan for the school board. The designing was a lot of fun (and work), but it will never be implemented by me in my home.

I just wondered how many other parents here are leadership types. It seems that if I had more of a managerial disposition, curriculum-implementation would be fun, or at least likely. I really cannot fathom doing that, myself. Obviously people can have a blend of these dispositions, but I really do not- in a big way.

In case anyone has read my post about starting up my business, don't worry; I deliberately chose something that would allow me to function as me while not crashing the business until a later point when I would bring in a manager to keep it from crashing, lol. I know myself well. :)

It seems that a more blended person might tend toward eclectic/relaxed approaches to child-rearing, and a very highly managerial person would love to take a much neater, predictable approach, while free-learning would make that person nuts, but make me very happy.

Of course, there's the reality of a parent and child having very different dispositions, respectively.

What are your thoughts? I'm musing. :)

[Piglet68]

Well, I think I would probably fall under the "leadership" type, as ever since I was a child I've been the one to take the reins, so to speak, and lead if nobody else offered. My daughter is also quite that type, though she is still learning to temper and soften her desire to be in control all the time, lol. I'm definitely not the type to stick to schedules or curricula, which I suppose is why unschooling works so well for us.

[UnschoolnMa]

I can often be in that leadership position if I feel it's called for. My personal style of leading, however, is really really practical. Like I AM the details. I AM the mediating "how can we make this work for us in a way that you know... actually works" kind of gal. And I am very big on talking as a tool. It bugs the carp out of many people, but it seemed to suit my unschooling life (and children) very well.

[Greenmama2]

Gosh, perhaps I'd better be described as rebellious then because I'd rather not apply either of those terms to my family. I have to be honest and say the terms in that link made me gag. Leaders have followers? Ugh! That sounds no different to subordinates to me.
In the wide world I'm often the one that will get frustrated and step into the leader role when no-one else does but those situations have an artificiality that my relationship with my children doesn't.

[UnschoolnMa]

Originally Posted by Greenmama2 
In the wide world I'm often the one that will get frustrated and step into the leader role when no-one else does but those situations have an artificiality that my relationship with my children doesn't.

Yes! So true. There is the rub. The home and family is it's own tiny universe of sorts. My children were never my "followers" (well, other than that they did follow me everywhere for a time lo) but rather their own peeps with me as a trusted guide just because I had been around a tad (and I do mean a tad) longer than them. Also? I am not ashamed to say that there have been times my kids have stepped into that leader role as well. And wisely, I have "followed". ;)

[PreggieUBA2C]

Originally Posted by Greenmama2 

Gosh, perhaps I'd better be described as rebellious then because I'd rather not apply either of those terms to my family. I have to be honest and say the terms in that link made me gag. Leaders have followers? Ugh! That sounds no different to subordinates to me.
In the wide world I'm often the one that will get frustrated and step into the leader role when no-one else does but those situations have an artificiality that my relationship with my children doesn't.

That's an interesting perspective. :) And just to be clear, I prefer minions to followers, lol. Okay, just kidding. I respect your view on this. But more to the point, do you think there's something amiss with the idea of leading one's family?

Obviously there is very bad or poor leadership, both of which might require following as an act of subordination, but that's not at all how I view my role, or who I am. The perspective and bias I had while reading the linked article and chart was that a leader inspires through genuine desire to take others where s/he is or wants to be- a visionary. So, something like, "Hey, you guys, look at this! Can you imagine if we ________. Come on; I have an idea!" And those who are inspired would follow in order to participate in something they value, not out of duty or by force/coercion.

A managerial type might be more inclined to choose from amongst the already established options, the most viable course, and then deliberately fulfill the steps necessary to achieve the already determined goal. This person, for example, might truly delight in facilitating a rigid classical education for her dc, then genuinely and truly delight in the result of that detailed, daily attention to routines, being part of a conventional path to university, then to career then, then to marriage, etc....

I don't think there's anything horrible about these distinctions, but then again, your reading of the text was clearly from a very different perspective than mine. I found it to be rather ethically neutral when I read it, so I took it as it was written- a framework- and filled in my own ethics. I don't have any emotional reaction to the words themselves.

Just for context:

The reason I posted this thread was that I was discussing leadership vs. managerial dispositions with friends (accounting for the reality that most people will be a blend of the two sets of characteristics), and their immediate response was that if I'm not a good manager (or a manager at all, as happens to be the case for me), then I should send my dc to school so that someone who is a good manager (presumably the classroom teacher) could take responsibility for managing the daily goings-on of my children. Of course, the question then is, "Why wouldn't a child benefit from the guidance of a leader? Are managers more suited to guiding children?" I don't think it's relevant, really. Children have the parents they do, regardless, and they all learn from them in some way at least. My children will learn what they need to from or in spite of me and my short-comings, and likewise my strengths. Anyway, it occurred to me that unschooling works in our family precisely because dp and I are leaders or guides, and the last thing we want to be doing is directing the minutia of other people's pursuits! In some ways my dc do have a lot of responsibility to fill in the steps for themselves, but they don't seem to have any problems doing so.

I just wondered if others had a similar "profile". :)