Purpose – Against the background of current leadership theory, this research paper analyses and compares the leadership approaches of two outstanding leaders: Daniel Vasella, chairman of the leading Swiss pharmaceutical organization Novartis and Ricardo Semler, owner of the Brazilian conglomerate Semco. In contrast to many rather abstract, unpractical and pointlessly theoretical papers on leadership this analysis provides a more applied view of leadership by means of the life history approach delivering insight into both leaders’ development and leader personality. Methodology/approach – First, this paper locates the ideas and practices associated with the term “leadership” as a concept through theories that have developed over time and shows how the practices of leading can be derived and understood through chosen theories. Based on this, the specific characteristics and career paths of both leaders are presented and compared so that a final analysis of their leadership approach can be done. The paper is based on secondary sources such as peer-reviewed business journals and literature on leadership. Information about both leaders and their approach to leadership is gathered mainly from published interviews with them. Additional information on Semler is taken from his autobiography. Conclusions – It is difficult to identify an “essence” of leadership, whether that takes the form of personality characteristics or traits, charisma, the ability to transform people or organizations or a brain function. All presented theories of leadership seem to have their raison d’être. Both Vasella and Semler apply a combination of different attitudes and behaviours that characterize their leadership style containing elements of transformational, charismatic, ethical, servant and authentic leadership.
MULTIFILE
There is increasing interest in the use of experiential knowledge and the development of experiential expertise in mental health. Yet, little is known about how best to use this expertise in the role of a psychiatrist. This study aims to gain insight into the concerns of psychiatrists using their lived experiences with mental health distress as a source of knowledge for patients, colleagues and themselves. Eighteen psychiatrists with lived experience as patients in mental health care were interviewed with a semi-structured questionnaire. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative narrative thematic analysis. The majority of the respondents use their lived experience implicitly in the contact with patients, which makes the contact more equal and strengthens the treatment relationship. When explicitly using experiential knowledge in the contact with patients, thought should be given at forehand to its purpose, timing and dosage. Recommendations are that the psychiatrist should be able to reflect on his/her lived experience from a sufficient distance and should take patient factors into account. When working in a team, it is advisable to discuss the use of experiential knowledge in advance with the team. An open organizational culture facilitates the use of experiential knowledge and safety and stability in the team are vital. Current professional codes do not always offer the space to be open. Organizational interests play a role, in the degree of self-disclosure as it can lead to conflict situations and job loss. Respondents unanimously indicated that the use of experiential knowledge in the role of a psychiatrist is a personal decision. Self-reflection and peer supervision with colleagues can be helpful to reflect on different considerations with regard to the use of experiential knowledge. Having personal lived experiences with a mental disorder affects the way psychiatrists think about and performs the profession. The perception of psychopathology becomes more nuanced and there seems to be an increased understanding of the suffering. Even though harnessing experiential knowledge makes the doctor-patient relationship more horizontal it remains unequal because of the difference in roles. However, if adequately used, experiential knowledge can enhance the treatment relationship.
MULTIFILE
Het onderwijs zoals we het nu kennen stamt uit het begin van de 19e eeuw. In de Nederlandse onderwijswet van 1806 werden leraren verplicht klassikaal les te gaan geven en de oude manier van lesgeven werd verboden (het zogenaamde hoofdelijk onderwijs). Onderwijzers moesten vanaf dat moment bevoegd zijn tot onderwijzen en de landelijke inspectie hield toezicht of de nieuwe schoolregels werden nageleefd. Gezien de veranderingen in de samenleving, ziet het er naar uit dat het ‘traditionele’ onderwijs aan het einde van zijn levenscyclus is gekomen. Technologische innovaties maken dat werk verandert en onderwijs dat jongeren voorbereidt op “volwaardige deelname aan de samenleving en een bij hun talenten passende (toekomstige) positie op de arbeidsmarkt” (Onderwijsbegroting OCW 2011, artikel 3) zal zich daarop moeten aanpassen. En zoals het geen zin heeft om krijtjes voor het schoolbord te verbeteren als een digibord wordt gebruikt, gaat het ook niet lukken om het onderwijs te verbeteren met verouderde gereedschappen. In dit essay zullen enkele kenmerken van de hedendaagse loopbaanbegeleiding worden geplaatst in de tijdgeest waaruit deze kenmerken zijn voortgekomen. De tekst komt deels uit de oratie ‘Architectuur van leren voor de loopbaan: richting en ruimte (Kuijpers, 2012).
