Running Head: Leadership Development Plan
[Your Name]
[Instructor’s Name]
Leadership Development Plan
Summary
The present paper represents a leadership development portfolio in three parts. The first part represents the reflection on the use of different leadership styles in five scenarios of the SimuLearn’s vLeader simulation aimed at the development of leadership skills. Each scenario presents a unique challenge for the learner such as asserting himself in the new working team, resolving the conflict in a team, pushing his own ideas in the teams with members possessing more formal power, managing the adoption of sound decisions under pressure of the upcoming merger, and the crisis management after a fire in Nortic. Hence, the first part contains reflections on which leadership style was more appropriate and effective for which scenario, with general conclusions on which outcomes the use of each leadership style usually brings about. The second part of the present work is dedicated to the personal reflection on the leadership qualities based on the assessment via Daft’s (2008) Leader’s SelfInsight tool. The strengths and limitations of the researcher’s leadership qualities are presented in the second part. The third section of the present work is dedicated to an extended leadership reflection in which the researcher’s personal leadership model is presented and explained, the theories of leadership personally used by the researcher are discussed, the gaps between practice and theory are delineated, and an action plan for improving the researcher’s leadership qualities is presented. The theories of particular interest to the researcher are the trait theory and contingency theory. The gaps in leadership skills refer to little focus on social needs, low team conflict resolution skills, and low emphasis on the stewardship and servant leadership in the leadership style. Steps to tackle these limitations are presented at the end of the third section.
Part 1: vLeader Practice and Reflection
Scenario 1: One-on-One
The first scenario “One-on-One” sets the scene of Corey’s development as a leader in team of the new company to which he came, and the choice of any leadership style in Nortic, specifically during his first encounter with Oli, an employee also willing to take the leadership position in the company, determines the way in which the future course of action will develop. It is of high importance for Corey to assert himself in a team, but not to push subordinates away by adopting a directive style at once; hence, the best variant of leadership in this scenario is that of participating leadership. On the one hand, Corey shows his strong emphasis on certain organizational objectives he aims at pursuing; on the other hand, Corey shows understanding and sympathy to some personal matters of his subordinates in Nortic, thus showing the awareness of the close connection between personal issues and the employees’ productivity at the workplace. Once the personal issue is resolved, the employee morale may go up significantly, which will ultimately have a positive impact on the overall organizational performance.
Moreover, it is essential to understand that the participative style in this scenario fosters Oli’s idea sharing, but at the same time keeps him within the limits of a subordinate position. Corey should take into account that Oli is a very energetic and ambitious employee who is well known in the company, and who can easily grasp the initiative once Corey adopts a delegating leadership style, thus undermining the authority of a new boss. However, the directive style increases tension and prevents Oli from sharing highly valuable ideas of much benefit for the company. Hence, the participatory style in communication with Oli is the best alternative for Corey if he aims at identifying himself as a leader but at the same time winning trust and cooperativeness of his new subordinates.
In the present scenario, effective steps that can be taken to assert Corey as a leader but at the same time not to alienate from employees is the adoption of the participative leadership style. Only in this style, this scenario develops effectively. The key learning point in scenario one are that a leader should not overtly assert himself in a new team through a directive style as this may isolate some employees and hinder idea sharing. Another learning point is that subordinates share ideas more eagerly when they are relaxed, so it is in the interest of the leader to relax tension, and to achieve more productive outcomes this way. The present findings are consonant with the steward and interactive leadership theories that emphasize power sharing among subordinates and the leader to achieve more productive cooperation results.
Scenario 2: Staff Meeting in the Break Room
The scenario of a meeting in the break room presents Corey with a serious challenge of resolving a conflict between his two direct reporters, and building proper alliances in the conditions of conflicting interests. The key learning point in the present scenario is the fact that building an alliance with any of the conflict parties is potentially disadvantageous for Corey because by getting close to one of his subordinates, he will automatically alienate the other one, which will ultimately result in grave climate deterioration, and the conflict will only intensify. The present learning point is in alignment with the theory of conflict management strategies in teams – accommodating and compromising strategies are less beneficial than the collaborating one. Hence, the only effective step that could be taken by Corey in this scenario was to find the common ground for the two persons in conflict, and only then pass on to the critical work tasks that need to be completed.
The most appropriate leadership style at the beginning of this scenario is that of participation – Corey has to find out the core reasons for the conflict between Rosa and Oli, and reduce tension in the team by finding the common ground, a joint goal for both subordinates. Only once the conflict is resolved and the common ground is found, Corey may successfully endorse his goal of raising customer retention to 65% – under these conditions, both Oli and Rosa will be actively involved in that idea’s passing, which will ensure the overall acceptance of the objective. Hence, the team’s alignment and commitment to the pre-established goal of Corey is possible only after conflict resolution, and Corey may then adopt a directive leadership style to firmly push his idea of customer retention and further support it until he gets the unified acceptance thereof.
Scenario 3: Meeting in the Conference Room / Challenging the Status Quo
In contrast to the previous two scenarios in which he acted as an indisputable leader among his subordinates in Nortic, in the present case, he is more of a follower because his bosses Will and Herman are present in the conference room. Nonetheless, on the other hand, Corey is still a leader because Oli and Rosa are also present in the conference room, and they are the subordinates of all others present. Here, Corey faces the double jeopardy – either not fulfilling his business objectives (he sees very clearly that the Call Center initiative is highly beneficial for Nortic, though Will is against it) or failing as a leader in the eyes of his subordinates (Oli and Rosa are tense in the room where too many bosses are present, but they still watch Corey as their boss, and in case he fails to prove his point, his reputation as a leader will surely be undermined). The key learning point in the third scenario is that the influence is not always in the hands of the person holding the most formal power, but still, more powerful people should introduce ideas for them to gain weight and be considered. Moreover, the learning point is that the subordinates will support their boss in the conditions of a safe environment only; in case they feel unsafe, they will choose the strategy of non-intrusion facing a conflict of opinion between their bosses.
The present scenario is highly informative from the learning viewpoint, as it shows that people may be able to push their ideas through even in case they are not formal leaders in some situation. Here, the most effective step is about building alliances and supporting the right person without alienating another boss, thus preventing the trigger of his self-protection reactions. The most appropriate course of the development action in scenario three thus seems the adoption of the participative leadership style at first. By artificially increasing the tension in the room, Corey may make a call for brainstorming for new ideas and beneficial options. If such conditions are created, Herman may be pushed to voice the idea about the Call Center, and Corey’s objectives of “Call Center Work” and “Rosa on Sales Call” may be passed in that atmosphere of idea search. After the ideas are offered, and Corey has voiced his strong support for those ideas, he can adopt a delegating leadership style to prevent the alienation of Will, while the proposal about Rosa on Sales Call is likely to attract Will’s attention because of his position of the Head of the Sales Department. This way, Corey will achieve all his objectives without causing discontent of his bosses, and not losing respect of employees. in such conditions, Corey may be seen as fulfilling both task focus (promoting the idea of Call Center Work) and relationship focus (pushing Rosa to the sales position). The present scenario is consistent with the contingency theory of leadership (Daft 2008) under which leaders should rely not on their characteristics and skills, but on the unique set of variables of their environment, people present, the level of tension, etc. to achieve their purposes.
Scenario 4: Meeting at a Retreat / Merger of Cultures
In the fourth scenario, Corey is challenged with making his ideas endorsed in the environment where he enjoys the least formal power, though he is also a leader by nature, as those present are. In the conditions where the fate of Nortic is decided, Corey has to apply his best leadership skills to ensure that the right, wise decisions are made. In this scenario, the most effective steps by Corey can be made only through a participative leadership style by entering an alliance with Alan and achieving a higher position of influence once he and Alan push the same ideas. Alan is the person with the highest level of formal authority in the conference room, so alignment with him may give Corey much weight in the discussion. Here, the benefit will be of purely political, diplomatic nature, since entering an alliance with Herman and Will is not likely to bring any benefit to Corey and the three of them – Alan may grow protective after seeing that his authority is challenged, and may adopt a directive leadership style. In terms of objectives, it will be good for Corey because he agrees with Alan about the future of Nortic; however, in terms of relationships, such a strategy will be destructive, and will separate Alan as the boss from his subordinates Will and Herman, which is unhealthy for the corporate relationships. Logically, Corey should use the participative and delegating leadership styles in this scenario to achieve his objectives and to reserve a relaxed, positive working climate and interrelationships among the executives.
Consequently, here the learning point is to apply the trait theory blended with the contingency theory to create the favorable course of action for Corey on his way to asserting himself, gaining influence on other people’s opinions, and finally leading the discussion to the most proactive decisions. According to Daft (2008), a leader should possess such social characteristics as sociability, interpersonal skills, cooperativeness, and ability to enlist cooperation with tact and diplomacy (p. 41).
Scenario 5: Meeting in the Board Room / Crisis and Opportunity
The present scenario poses Corey into a situation of a conflict between his bosses, and the dilemma of who will report to the press, and how much truth will be communicated. The most effective step for Corey is to apply the directive leadership style from the very beginning of the conflict and to take the issue off the agenda by assigning some person, either Herman or Will, and instilling the focus on saying all truth to the press. The principles of dealing with the crisis from a leadership perspective state clearly that being calm, focusing on the future, and telling the truth are the basic preconditions of successful pursuit of a way out of the crisis (Daft 2008). After this issue has been resolved, Corey again should apply directive leadership to draw the focus of the employees on the critical work that needs to be done to get out of the crisis. If the participative or delegating leadership style is adopted in such a situation, the team will get too much involved in their problems, and will never find the way out, yielding to panic and being paralyzed by it.
After the direction of looking for the future of the company is set, the most effective decision for Corey is to take a participative leadership style to help the team make common decisions, thus increasing their sense of belonging and commitment to dealing with the crisis. Deciding on the relocation, and making decisions regarding best products, best service, and low-cost providers are among the strategic objectives for Corey at that moment. Nevertheless, other leaders such as Herman, Will, and Alan are present at the meeting as well, so after the situation is taken under control and tension is decreased, so the most appropriate decision for Corey in preserving the respect to his bosses in the team is to take a delegating leadership style to help Will and Herman regain their confidence and formal leadership positions in the conditions of a crisis. The key learning point of this scenario is that managing a team in the times of a crisis may be not a bad experience, but a path to opportunities – the outcome depends on the strategic thinking of the leader and his or her ability to focus the team not only on the present problem, but also on the future potential, thus reducing the tension.
The fifth scenario is a pure example of contingency theory of leadership according to which the leader’s position in the situation is dictated not by responsiveness to the needs of each separate employee involved, but the destiny of the overall company. In such a situation, the leader should be firm and calm, and the best choice in such a situation is the directive style of leadership, since it is the surest way to save the situation, and help the subordinates and bosses to focus not on the present panic, but on the future fate of the whole organization.
Part 2: Awareness Through Leader Self-Concepts
The testing through Leader’s SelfInsight tools in the book of Daft (2008) revealed many important and at times surprising aspects of my personality as a leader. First, I discovered that my level of self-confidence is 7 out of 10, which is highly reassuring for me – I did not ever think that I was such a self-confident person, though I am quite assertive in the issues in which I am sure, and about which I am experienced. The present feature is of highly value for me because, as noted by Mumford (2010), self-confidence as a belief in one’s ability to fulfill a certain task is the key to a leader’s success (p. 95). However, every leader should keep in mind that too much self-confidence may be mixed with arrogance and impudence, which is not healthy for leaders’ relationships with other people.
Another interesting result for me was my preference of certain team conflict management strategies. I have always thought that I was an effective conflict manager, but as the results of the test indicated, I prefer competing and avoiding more than compromising and accommodating. However, the reassuring result was achieved regarding the collaborating conflict management style – I gained the maximum number of scores for it, which means that I most often choose to collaborate, compete, and avoid the conflict. According to Yarbrough (2008), the competing style is assertive and uncooperative, collaborative style is both assertive and cooperative, and avoiding style is neither cooperative nor assertive (p. 65). Hence, I see that I have to make some conclusions from these results, and make more effort to focus on the collaborative conflict resolution style, since two others seem not highly effective in terms of the overall conflict management outcomes.
The result of testing regarding my communication apprehension surprised me in a positive way because I am always striving to achieve the improvement of my communicative skills, but I did not know that I would score that high on the test. I believe that communicative skills present the core skills for any person in any situation in which interaction with other people is involved. Communicating one’s idea properly is half of success in getting something done, since communication breakdowns and inconsistencies are the most frequent reason for certain objectives’ failures. Moreover, as Malloch and Porter-O’Grady (2009) indicated, “interpersonal communication includes a wide array of relational and communication skills that result in constant investment and engagement and inclusion of individuals in decisions and actions” (p. 34). Hence, nobody should underestimate the role of interpersonal communication because of its strategic influence on the work outcomes and relationships.
The analysis of my end values as a leader showed that I am more focused on my personal values such as exciting life, pleasure, self-respect, and sense of accomplishment. True friendship, another end value I chose, is of ambiguous nature and borders on social and personal values. Hence, as one can see, personal values are of much more importance for me, so I think my developmental focus should be made stronger on social values than on personal ones. As for instrumental values, they are also mostly concerned with competence than morality – I chose ambition, logic, and self-control as competencies, and responsibility and helpfulness as morality features. These results show that I am both focused on morality and my own competence, while the personal focus is still stronger than the attitude to other people.
The self-centered nature of my leadership profile can also be proven by my test on servant leadership; as the test results stated, I am more of an authoritarian and participative leader, while stewardship and servant leadership features are present in my leadership profile to a minimum. I scored 3 out of 4 for authoritarian style, 4 out of 4 for participative style, 1 out of 4 for stewardship, and 1 out of 4 for servant leadership. According to Lussier and Achua (2009), stewardship and servant leadership are directly related to charisma and transformational leadership skills of a leader; these skills may empower the followers for exercising leadership and accomplishing the organizational goals (p. 356). However, my lack of focus on these leadership styles signals about my extreme preoccupation with maintaining my personal power as a leader, and unwillingness to delegate authority and power to my followers. Consequently, I feel I need to work more on these features of leadership to strengthen my leadership profile, and to gain a more favorable reputation among my followers.
Part 3: Integration and Extension: Personalized Leadership Approach and Development Plan
After the completion of the vLeader simulation and the series of personal testing inventories for leadership qualities, I have come to a clear and coherent understanding of my own leadership model that I want to pursue and in compliance with which I want to bring all my skills and behaviors. Upon studying a number of theories of leadership, I have decided to take the core of my model in the trait theory of a leader, since not every person can be a leader, and some inborn and consciously developed features distinguish a leader from other people. Hence, I concentrated on the traits I saw as indispensible ones for a leader and included them in the central part of my leadership model. I believe that no matter how well a person manipulates the behavioral features and the environmental variables, he or she will never be recognized as a leader in case he or she does not possess such basic features as knowledge in the field of work, sober and analytical judgment, experience of work, decisiveness and enthusiasm to lead his or her followers to the estimated objective’s completion, as well as politeness and tact often necessary to navigate the flows of power for the attainment of certain objectives. Leaders also have to be honest with their subordinates, and should be highly sociable, that is, possess strong communication skills, to succeed as leaders. Hence, these are the traits I included in compliance with trait theory – see Figure 1.
Figure 1. My Personal Leadership Model
The features of a leader are at the core of my scheme; nevertheless, I am also a proponent of a contingency theory of leadership that states that leaders cannot be evaluated in a vacuum, separated from the environment in which they exercise their leadership qualities. Hence, following the contingency theory, I have figured out a series of typical leadership roles in which various leadership styles are exercised under varying conditions. Thus, for instance, the two key foci of a leader at the workplace are to manage people and manage tasks. An effective leader has to take care of both relationships and task, which at times is unattainable within a single leader effort. Sometimes, making some virtuous outcomes happen for the organization means remaining blind to the needs of employees, while the focus on relationships with employees is highly dangerous for a leader in terms of his or her loss of organizational focus, and extreme preoccupation with what employees, think, feel, or do at the expense of the organizational welfare. Consequently, as the vLeader simulation showed, there are some situations in which both the interests of the company and the needs of employees can be satisfied, though such outcomes require a delicate and wise strategic leadership behavior. Therefore, I focused my attention on these two fields of leader’s activities in my model.
Two other aspects of leader’s activity, as I perceived it from the vLeader simulation, are conflict management and crisis management. These two fields of leader’s responsibilities differ significantly from their regular tasks at hand, and leaders have to take into account a variety of variables, features, and their own skills to devise a workable strategy that will lead to the achievement of the most effective outcomes in these situations. Team conflict management is obviously one of the basic skills that a leader should possess, because work is usually done in teams, and leaders have to take a direct part in contributing to the teams’ cohesion, viability, and satisfaction. In case the leaders fail to take an active role in the life and functioning of their teams, both in times of peace and conflict, the trust and respect to a leader may reduce, which threatens his or her leadership position.
Leading the people in the times of a crisis is a separate role that any leader should possess, and that can come unexpectedly – as in vLeader, the fire unexpectedly destroyed Nortic’s building, and the need to decide on the company’s destiny was evident. Hence, in these conditions, the leader was a vital head of the desperate team welded in panic that could not decide on the easiest problems. For this reason, I have included crisis management in my model – I believe that every leader should have skills of managing people under stress and uncertainty, which is of strategic importance in some emergency situations, and wrong decisions under the influence of panic may lead to disastrous consequences for the firm in the long run.
Since I have recognized my gaps in leadership skills such as the excessive personal focus instead of the social orientation, lack of skills in proactive team conflict management, and the lack of focus on the stewardship and servant leadership, I have designed the following personal development plan to accomplish the goal of becoming a proficient and capable leader of modernity, and to comply with my model of leadership I have designed. The steps are as follows:
-
Develop a socially oriented focus of my leadership
-
Acquire more transformational and visionary leadership skills through focusing more on stewardship and servant leadership
-
Work more on effective conflict management strategies
-
Work more on my emotional intelligence to manage relationships and my own personality better
Each of these steps is of key importance, taking into account the modern pressures on leaders and the environments in which they are urged to exist and manage people and processes. Hence, each of them should be considered separately for the sake of clarity in my future activities on achievement of a higher leadership skills’ level:
Develop a socially oriented focus of my leadership. Sears, Sears, and Clough (2010) admitted that a more socially oriented leadership focus can be obtained by means of adopting an interactive leadership style characterized with intense emphasis on interpersonal communication, involvement, and interpersonal respect. Daft, Hendrik, and Vershinina (2010) also emphasized the benefit of interactive leadership as a path to servant leadership skills – the key features of interactive leadership include minimizing personal ambition and developing others, favoring a consensual and collaborative work process, and deriving influence and power from relationships rather than formal authority (p. 567). Ruminski and Holba (2011) also emphasized the critical role of information sharing in the interactive leadership style – the information flows are reciprocal, flowing in two directions as a symbol of power distribution. Though the present leadership style has been traditionally associated with female leaders, at present, it is seen as a valuable choice for both male and female leaders, since it offers highly necessary values such as personal humility, inclusion, relationship valuing, and personal care about each other at the workplace (Daft et al. 2010, p. 567).
Acquire more transformational and visionary leadership skills through focusing more on stewardship and servant leadership. Inbarasu (2008) emphasized that service is at the heart of the servant leadership style, which makes it more of a moral obligation than a formal duty of a leader in a company (p. 62). Servant leadership and stewardship are closely related concepts; servant leaders should incorporate the features of stewardship in their daily activities to become more socially oriented in their work. Taft and Ellis (2012) admitted that in their understanding, stewardship in leadership is connected with the acceptance of accountability for the impact of one’s own actions, as well his/her company and the industry, on the larger community. Similarly, Atwater and Waldman (2012) associated stewardship with the partnership in which power and control shift from formal leaders to the company’s employees in appropriate situations (p. 93). However, in case servant leadership integrates the concept of stewardship, the latter concept is seen as having the increased benefit for the company and the leader. Servant leadership thus presupposes helping followers to grow and develop professionally and personally, which makes them better servants for the customers’ and clients’ needs (Atwater & Waldman 2012, p. 93). As stated by Wheeler (2011), being a steward leader requires everyday emphasis on ensuring that resources are efficiently used by the company staff; moreover, the focus on stewardship requires constant work for the future fate of the business (ch. 11). Stewards can be both leaders and followers, while the concept of leader succession is of critical importance for stewardship, which I have to keep in mind to become a servant leader successfully. Hence, I believe that in case I manage to focus more on developing stewardship skills and adopting the servant leadership style, I will encourage growth and encouragement of my subordinates, which will ultimately lead to a significant improvement of their job satisfaction, loyalty, commitment, motivation, thus the corporate performance.
Work more on effective conflict management strategies. The state of conflict in a team is the disagreement over issues of substance that may or may not be accompanied with strong emotional antagonism (Schermerhorn 2011, p. 352). There is an urgent need for leaders to take advantage of the research findings available on the issue of conflict management in teams because leaders have to be personally interested in effective conflict resolutions. As Tekleab, Quigley, and Tesluk (2009) found out, there is a direct relationship between conflict management and team cohesion; successful conflict managements strategies employed by formal and informal leaders in a tam lead to the moderated relationship between relationship conflict and team cohesion, which in its turn affects the quality of team’s performance, satisfaction within the team, and the team’s viability (p. 170). These findings suggest that I as a leader can play a decisive role in managing intra-team conflict and contribute to the accomplishment of certain organizational goals, as well as to the increase of my subordinates’ job satisfaction directly related to intrinsic motivation.
As Kolb (2013) recommended based on her empirical research results, action on conflict resolution should be taken early in the conflict cycle, and the effective conflict management process can be facilitated by the involvement of ground rules for productive discussion of disagreements (p. 79). Moreover, there is a need to distinguish the interpersonal and work-related conflict, and to discuss the personal aspect of conflict in the group only in case it is concurrent with the group’s purpose, time availability, and skill set of the group. In other way, there is a threat of distraction from the work-related conflict roots, and the danger of personal offense and shame that will further disable the team’s work (Kolb 2013, p. 79).
Work more on my emotional intelligence to manage relationships and my own personality better. The need to possess emotional intelligence is repeatedly emphasized by researchers and practitioners in the modern business world. Williams (2007, p. 13) admitted that the core value of emotional intelligence (EI) for a leader is in the ability to understand, manage, and respond to emotions, which is of vital importance for a leader as a human being working with other human beings. The most comprehensive and clear definition of EI was proposed by Mayer and Salovey (1997, p, 10), and stated that EI is
“the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth”.
To become emotionally intelligent, leaders have to keep in mind four prime areas of EI – self-awareness (understanding yourself), self-management (managing yourself), social awareness (understanding others), and relationship management (managing others) (Nadler 2007, p. 15). Hence, I am planning to focus on the development of these four core areas to become a better emotionally intelligent leader; I believe that these skills will help me better understand myself, and will equip me with the inventory for understanding others’ emotions, thus enabling me to make more emotionally sensitive decisions.
References
Atwater, LE & Waldman, DA 2012, Leadership, feedback, and the open communication gap, Psychology Press, New York.
Daft, RL 2008, The leadership experience, 4th edn, Cengage Learning, Mason.
Daft, RL, Kendrick, M & Vershinina, N 2010, Management, Cengage Learning EMEA, Hampshire.
Inbarasu, J 2008, Influence of servant-leadership practice on job satisfaction: A correlational study in a Lutheran organization, ProQuest, Ann Arbor.
Kolb, JA 2013, ‘Conflict management principles for groups and teams’, Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 45, iss. 2, pp. 79-86.
Lussier, RN & Achua, CF 2009, Leadership with Infotrac: Theory, application, and skill development, 4th edn, Cengage Learning, Mason.
Malloch, K & Porter-O’Grady, T 2009, The quantum leader: Applications for the new world of work, 2nd edn, Jones & Bartlett Learning, Sudbury.
Mayer, JD & Salovey, P 1997, ‘What is emotional intelligence?’, in P Salovey & D Sluyter (Eds), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-31), Basic Books, New York.
Mumford, MD 2010, Leader one hundred one, Springer Publishing Company, New York.
Nadler, RS 2007, Leader’s playbook: How to apply emotional intelligence – keys to great leadership, Richard Moss Seminars, Santa Barbara.
Ruminski, EL & Holba, AM 2011, Communicative understandings of women’s leadership development: from ceilings of glass to labyrinth paths, Lexington Books, Plymouth.
Schermerhorn, JR 2011, Exploring management, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Danvers.
Sears, SK, Sears, GA & Clough, RH 2010, Construction project management: A practical guide to field construction management, 5th edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Taft, JG & Ellis, CD 2012, Stewardship: Lessons learned from the lost culture of Wall Street, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Tekleab, AG, Quigley, NR, & Tesluk, PE 2009, ‘A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness’, Group Organizational Management, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 170-205.
Wheeler, DW 2011, Servant leadership for higher education: principles and practices, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Williams, RK 2007, Emotional intelligence and leadership style: An investigation within a major telecommunications company, ProQuest, Ann Arbor.
Yarbrough, BT 2008, Leading groups and teams, 2nd edn, Cengage Learning, Mason.
Appendix Awareness and Assessment: Your Leader Self-Insights
|
Number & Title of Leader Self-Insight
|
Numerical Scores and/or other Outcome Measures
|
|
1.1 Your Learning Style: Using Multiple Intelligences – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Logical-Mathematical = 3
|
Verbal-Linguistic
= 2
|
Interpersonal = 3
|
Intrapersonal = 1
|
Musical
= 2
|
|
|
|
1.2 Your Leadership Potential- in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count of Mostly True (even-numbered questions) = 7
|
Count of Mostly True (odd-numbered questions) =5
|
|
|
|
1.3 Are You on a Fast Track to Nowhere? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count of Mostly True:
People Skills = 12
|
Count of Mostly True: Working with Authority = 15
|
Count of Mostly True: Networking = 13
|
|
|
|
2.1 Rate Your Self-Confidence– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Total Score =7
|
Count of Mostly True: 1, 7, 9 10 = 2
|
Count of Mostly False: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 = 5
|
|
|
|
2.2 What’s Your Leadership Orientation? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Consideration Behavior Score (Mostly True, items 1-4) = 2
|
Initiating Structure Behavior Score (Mostly True, items 5-8) = 3
|
|
|
|
4.5 Personality Assessment using Jung’s Typology/Myers-Briggs
Your four-letter MBTI type is:___INFJ_____ – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Total for I: 35%
Total for E:
Are you more I or more E?
More I than E
|
Total for S:
Total for N:20%
Are you more S or more N?
More N than S
|
Total for T:
Total for F: 49%
Are you more T or more F?
More F than T
|
Total for J: 32%
Total for P:
Are you more J or more P?
More J than P
|
|
|
|
4.2 Measuring Locus of Control– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your Score = 5
|
|
|
|
3.1 T-P Leadership Questionnaire: An Assessment of Style– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your “T” Score (Mostly True for 1-5)
2
|
Your “P” Score (Mostly True for 6-10)
3
|
|
|
|
3.2 Are You Ready? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your “Readiness” Level = 4
|
|
|
|
10.2 Assess Your Team Leadership Skills– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Total Score = 8
|
Count of Mostly True for 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 = 5
|
Count of Mostly False for 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 = 3
|
|
|
|
10.3 How Do You Handle Team Conflict? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Score for Competing (Items 2, 4, 15) = 2
|
Score for Avoiding (Items 1, 5, 9) = 2
|
Score for Compromising (Items 4, 7, 11) = 1
|
Score for Accommodating (Items 8, 12, 13) = 1
|
Score for Collaborating (Items 3, 6, 10) = 3
|
|
|
|
9.2 Listening Self-Inventory – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your Total Score (out of 12) = 8
|
Count of NO’s for Items 1, 2, 3, 5 , 6 ,7, 8, 9 = 5
|
Count of YES for Items 4, 10, 11, 12 = 3
|
|
|
|
7.1 The Power of Followership– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Independent Thinking: High, Middling, or Low? High
Active Engagement: High, Middling, or Low? Middling to High
Followership Style = Active
|
Score for Independent Thinking (Count of Mostly True, items 1, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16) =6
|
Score for Active Engagement (Count of Mostly True items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13) = 5
|
|
|
|
7.3 Receiving Feedback– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Score for Feedback Seeking (Items 1, 4, 7) = 2
|
Score for Feedback Avoiding (Items 2, 5, 8) = 1
|
Score for Feedback Mitigating (Items 3, 6, 9) = 1
|
|
|
|
9.3 Communication Apprehension– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Total Score = 7
|
Count Mostly False (2, 4, 5, 8, 9) = 3
|
Count Mostly True (1, 3, 6, 7, 10) = 4
|
|
|
|
12.3 Your Leadership Orientation (FRAME preference) – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Structural (sum all of the “a’s”) = 2
|
Human Resource (sum all of the “b’s”) = 1
|
Political (sum all of the “c’s”) = 1
|
Symbolic (sum all of the “d’s”) = 2
|
|
|
|
6.1 What’s Your Mach? (Machiavellian score) – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your Total MACH score = 8
|
Count Mostly False for items 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 = 3
|
Count Mostly True for items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 = 5
|
|
|
|
6.2 Your Servant Leadership Orientation– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly True for items 4, 8, 12, 16 Your Score for Authoritarian = 3
|
Count Mostly True for items 2, 6, 10, 14 Your Score for Participative = 4
|
Count Mostly True for items 3, 7, 11, 15 Your Score for Stewardship = 1
|
Count Mostly True for items 1, 5, 9, 13 Your Score for Servant Leadership = 1
|
|
|
|
Cultural Intelligence– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
|
Cognitive CQ
3
|
Physical CQ
3.5
|
Emotional / Motivational CQ
3.75
|
|
|
|
4.3 Instrumental and End Values– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
End Value 1: Exciting life
|
End Value 2: Pleasure
|
End Value 3: Self-respect
|
End Value 4: A sense of accomplishment
|
End Value 5: True friendship
|
|
Instrumental 1: Ambition
|
Instrumental 2: Helpfulness
|
Instrumental 3: Logic
|
Instrumental 4: Responsibility
|
Instrumental 5: Self-control
|
|
|
|
5.1 Mindfulness– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your Score for Open or Beginner’s Mind = 3
|
Your Score for Independent Thinking = 2
|
Your Score for Intellectual Stimulation =1
|
|
|
|
5.2 Emotional Intelligence– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly True for items 1, 5, 11, 13
Your Score for Self-Awareness = 4
|
Count Mostly True for Items 2, 8, 12, 14 Your Score for Self-Management = 1
|
Count Mostly True for Items 3, 6, 9, 15 Your Score for Social Awareness = 2
|
Count Mostly True for Items 4, 7, 10, 16 Your Score for Relationship Management = 4
|
|
|
|
5.3 Love or Fear? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly True for Items 1-5
“Fear of Failure” score = 2
|
Count Mostly True for Items 6 -10 “Love of Task” (Flow) score = 4
|
|
|
|
6.3 Assess Your Moral Courage– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly True responses = 5
|
|
|
|
14.1 How Spiritual Are You? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly True responses =4
|
|
|
|
11.1 Values Balancing– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Words in Column 1 Score for Personal Initiative = 4
|
Count Words in Column 2 Capacity for Collaboration = 4
|
|
|
|
11.3 Social Values– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Average your Results for Items 1, 2, 3 I-C Score (Individualism / Collectivism) = 2
|
Average your Results for Items 4, 5,6 UA Score
(Uncertainty Avoidance) = 2
|
Reverse/Average Results for Items 9 & 10 M-F Score (Masculinity / Femininity) = 1
|
Average Results for Items 11 & 12 PD Score
(Power Distance) = 1
|
|
|
|
13.1 My Personal Vision– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly Trues Your Total Score = 5
|
|
|
|
13.2 Visionary Leadership– in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly True for odd-numbered items Your Score for Creating a Vision = 2
|
Count Mostly True for even-numbered items Your Score for Implementing a Vision = 3
|
|
|
|
15.2 Are You a Change Leader? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Count Mostly True responses = 5
|
|
|
|
15.1 How Innovative Are You? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your Total Score = 7
|
Count Mostly True for Items 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 = 4
|
Count Mostly False for Items 3, 4, 6, 7 = 3
|
|
|
|
15.3 Do You Have a Creative Personality? – in brief, what do the results mean?
|
Your total Creativity score (which may be positive or negative, but must be between +18 and -12) = +8
|
Add 1 point for choosing words numbered 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30. Your score = 13
|
Subtract 1 point for choosing words numbered 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 20, 27, 29, 29. Your score = 5
|
