**5.2 Finding compromise while preserving identity**

Returning to the end of semester conversation with the internal coordinators for the Foresight Thinking Plan, each side had, after much work, received qualified endorsement. Each side in the conversation was possessive of its respective plans. The tone and outcome of the conversation suggested the potential for the system trap of Accidental Adversaries: "While each group had been conceived as part of an overall system whose actions would benefit all, each group had come to focus on its individual responsibilities and success ([14], p. 20)." To avoid the trap, the first step would be to "Clarify or remind both groups how they can benefit from partnering with each other (p.153)".

The author agrees that foresight thinking is essential to leadership—extensive surveys have demonstrated that to be the case ([7], p. 30–31). In recent years those capabilities have and continue to become an increasingly important part of Individual Characteristic B, and are directly pertinent to Process Steps 1, 3, and 6 of **Figure 1**. The author regards foresight thinking as only one of three leadership characteristics, and therefore does not equate foresight thinking with leadership, since the latter also incorporates values and aspirations. As to whether values are on the same footing as capabilities, the author's answer is an emphatic Yes. Indeed, many scholars—e.g., [2, 3, 7, 12]—assert that values represent the first and most important building block of effective leadership.

Additionally, consistent with the vision of the co-originators of the Leadership Proposal, the author maintains that leadership occurs in all domains of the fouryear experience and often involves the ability to influence others—sometimes even

#### *The Imperative—and the Challenges—of Introducing a Citizen-Leader Development Program… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100002*

in short-run time horizons—by virtue of the leader's established human relationships and capacity to motivate and even inspire others.

The author understands that he must make another effort to talk with the internal coordinators of the Foresight Thinking Plan, and recently offered an apology for his contribution to an unsuccessful spring conversation. The author speculates that unless both sets of parties demonstrate some form of effort toward collaboration, both plans may once again encounter barriers, including concerns about feasibility, questions about funding, and non-acceptance of concepts by the broad-based community.

The author is aware that collaboration can lead to two possible outcomes. One is the opinion conveyed by the College Office of Advancement: the Leadership Plan and the Foresight Thinking Plan should be merged and brought under one structure in the organization of the College. The author finds that potentially troubling, since the central premise of the Leadership Proposal and Plan are directly linked to the stated mission of Dickinson College. The author favors an alternative: finding a way to make the two plans complementary to improve the relationship among the parts of a larger system ([14], p. 86) while preserving the identity of each part.

## **5.3 The need to be mindful of multiple goals**

As previously noted, the co-originators of the Leadership Proposal had clarity about challenges to the College and even to the liberal arts model of education. While working to shape the Plan, however, especially in the six months from November 2019 to mid-summer 2020, the author and Implementation Team primarily gave thought to translating those broad ideas to more refined leadership concepts, rather than to issues of operational feasibility.

Following the November judgment of qualified acceptance, the author revisited the multiple goals of the Challenge: to create intrinsic value for students; to shape identifiable outcomes; to help the College be more distinctive among peers; to attract new students to the College; and to attract new sources of funds from donors.

Stroh helps provide clarity. He describes a system archetype, "Competing Goals". He provides advice for the case when there are only two competing goals: "look for a higher goal that encompasses the competing ones"; "if achievement of both goals is mutually exclusive, commit to one"; or "if not, determine different corrective actions that lead to the accomplishment of both goals ([14], p.155)."

For the Challenge, goals were not inherently exclusive; nevertheless, the author believes more thought must be given to simultaneously achieving all.
