A511.9.3.RB - Course Reflections

At the beginning of the course, I defined leadership as a person that unites and motivates a group of people toward a common cause or goal.  I don't think I'd change that definition, now that the end of the course is drawing near.  The way I defined it applies to all the situations I can think of.  To be any more specific would be to deny the title of leader to those that are truly leading people.

Moving through this course and learning the different leadership theories has explained some things to me, about the role of a leader.  I guess I've had a bit of natural leadership ability, being able to read what makes people tick; what motivates them.  Now, with the exploration of leader-member exchange theory and path-goal theory (Northouse, 2018), I have terms to apply to what came naturally.  I can now be more deliberate in the actions I may already have taken.

The type of leader I aspire to be is somewhere between an adaptive leader and a servant leader.  I try to put the needs of my people ahead of everything else.  The military side of me says that sometimes the mission comes first, though.  I have to learn to reconcile those two sides of me, which I suppose is part of being adaptive; learning when and how much to serve.

Reference

Northouse, P. (2018).  Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th ed. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

A511.7.3.RB - Inner Work for Authentic Leadership

After viewing the brief video of Bill George (2012), I had these thoughts:

From a leadership standpoint, the most instructional experience for me was my first time supervising a shop.  It was in Iraq, about 10 years ago.  The shops previous supervisors had been reassigned or been injured.  Personally, I was dealing with the birth of my son back home and an overbearing civilian supervisor that was making my life exceedingly difficult.  All of this, combined with my inexperience, resulted in my handling the situation very poorly.  I took a very aggressive tact and spent more time enforcing rules and writing counseling papers.  I didn't have the knowledge or maturity to stop and consider that it might be my own actions and behaviors that were causing my airmen to misbehave and become unproductive.

Enter our flight superintendent (a department manager, if you will).  Rather than come down on me with the same aggressive tact I had taken, he took me aside and provided some very frank and honest feedback.  I didn't have the time or place to reflect, given the emergent and hostile nature of our location.  But, he mentored me, without strict direction of exactly what I should do.  I was given the time and space necessary to learn and grow.  In the end, I salvaged the relationship with my team and got productivity back on track.  When I returned back to my home station, I sought new opportunities that would allow me to learn to be a better supervisor and leader.

These days, I take more time to consider my decisions on how to handle conflicts or when rules are broken.  Learning to pick my battles, how to keep my cool, and choose my words more carefully were all important lessons that I learned from my first experience.  I continue to seek new opportunities to learn and grow as a leader.  Which is why I've grown frustrated in my current position that isolates me from formal leadership and focuses more on resource management and analysis.

Reference

George, B. (2012).  Harvard's Bill George: Inner work for authentic leadership. [Video file].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=86&v=SmPu2LQ84ts

A511.6.3.RB - A Leader From the Past

I have had a lot of leaders in the past, but how many were actually transformative in how they led?  I wondered if it was necessary for the leader to intentionally be transformative.  I've had leaders that inspired through positive example.  I've also had leaders that served as negative examples.  Northouse  (2018) described these types of leaders as psuedotranformational leaders. The positive examples made me want to work harder for several reasons; to impress them and gain their respect, to exceed their expectations, and be a better mechanic and supervisor.  The negative examples influenced me through fear and anxiety; I strove to avoid punishment and struggled to remember the intricate and inane details of daily activities that didn't require that level of micromanagement. 

Reflecting on what I think made the leaders transformative, I also consider the role I played in their ability to be transformative.  In circumstances where I was happy in my job and interested in learning more skills I was more receptive to being led in such a transformative way.  I also responded to transactional leadership, especially early in my career.  One of the most valuable things a military leader can give their people is time off.  Being cut loose early on a Friday was an amazing feeling.  Even my negative examples could turn that exercise into something I would dread.  Was I sent home because I did something wrong?  Or was it because I did something well?  The goal posts were always moving. So, I never knew where I stood.

Ultimately, my experiences have made me the leader that I am today.  I try to set a positive example, while also providing clear direction and expectations.  When performance is sub-par I provide timely feedback and explore the possibilities that all of the subordinate's needs aren't being met.  While I wish I could have gone through my career without the trauma of the negative examples, I'm grateful for where I am today.

Reference


Northouse, P. (2018).  Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th ed. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

A511.5.3.RB - Midterm Reflection

This week we were asked to view a TED Talk that was done by Itay Talgam (2009).  We are to interpret his talk through the lens of what we have learned about leadership so far, and how his thoughts on conductors compares to the theories we have read about.  It seems important to understand the role of a conductor in the first place.  My personal experience, as a saxophone player in the school band, was that conductors are teachers and are to be obeyed without exception.  In a professional setting, they are truly leaders.  They guide the orchestra through the music and must maintain an appropriate amount of control over the individual artists, in order for their effort as a team to sound right.

Talgam names, describes and provides examples of, five different conductors.  My first interpretation of his remarks was though the situational leadership approach described by Northouse (2018).  The first conductor, Muti, is an extreme case of a directive leader.  His technique is very severe, which apparently matches his personality; he was asked to resign in 2006, by every member of La Scala.  The musicians felt stifled, as though they were not allowed to demonstrate their own artistic expressions.  Next, Talgam shows us Kleiber conducting a couple pieces.  Kleiber is a good example of a supporting or coaching leader.  His technique shows the orchestra members when they are doing well and also corrects them when they make a mistake.  He leaves room for individual artistic interpretation, while keeping them together as a team.  Talgam didn't just show us good examples, though.  When he shows a clip of Strauss, I think of a poor example of a supporting leaders.  He looks uninterested and unaffected by the music.  Strauss fails to provide any change in technique that might give feedback to his team (orchestra).

The next conductor we're shown is Bernstein.  He is a good example or a mix between supporting and delegating.  Talgam shows us two clips and in one Bernstein barely moves.  His emotions are shown, but he doesn't move his hands at all.  He has delegated the piece to his team, while still providing feedback.  While I couldn't imagine watching Strauss for very long, I feel like I could watch Kleiber and Bernstein for quite some time.  They seem to truly enjoy their work and the product (music).  Karajan is another conductor that Talgam shows us a clip of.  To me, this is an example of poor delegation.  Karajan closes his eyes and just moves his hands in a non-descriptive manner.  This leaves the piece in the hands of the musicians, but without the necessary feedback to keep things on track.  He's given over control, while also making their jobs harder.

If I were to reach a bit more, connecting Talgam's remarks to the theories we've learned, I would say that Kleiber's interactions with his orchestra demonstrate the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory.  The way he interacts with individuals inside the team, seems to reflect the role that theory plays in determining the performance of his musicians.  Over all, this was an interesting exercise is relating leadership theories to unconventional professions.

Reference

Talgam, I. (2009). Itay Talgam: Lead like the Great Conductors [Video File].  Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/itay_talgam_lead_like_the_great_conductors?language=en

Northouse, P. (2018).  Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th ed. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

A511.4.3.RB - Locus of Control

This week we're looking at the locus of control.  The concept describes how much a person believes they are responsible for their own outcomes.  How much impact does fate, luck, or other outside influences have on a person's experiences or circumstances (Joelson, 2017).  The locus of control is described as being internal or external.  A person with an internal locus of control believes they are responsible for their own outcomes.  Conversely, a person with an external locus of control believes they are at the mercy of their own luck or the whims of others.

I took a 29 question test, Rotter's Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966), that was designed to evaluate a person's locus of control.  My score was 9.  Relative to the number of questions, I would consider that to be a low score.  A lower score indicates an internal locus of control.  This aligns with my biased view of my outlook on life in general.  For the most part, I believe I can work anything into existence.  Whether it's looking for a new job, accomplishing a financial goal, or seeing a plan through to fruition, I believe my own efforts dictate the outcome.  This isn't to say that I discount outside influences, but it does mean that I refuse allow those forces to completely determine my outcomes.

I view myself, and have frequently been described, as a "fixer."  I can go into a situation, diagnose the problems, and implement solutions.  It's a bit of a catch-22, but this jives well with my locus of control.  Which came first: my locus of control or my leadership style?  Because I believe that outcomes are self-determined, I view solutions as needing to be accomplished by the individual.  When I lead, I expect my people to take responsibility for their actions and for the work they are assigned.  I have little patience for people that throw their hands up and yield to some unseen force.  I also don't tolerate people who do nothing but blame others for their circumstances or shortcomings.  I do wonder what determines a person's locus of control, and how that knowledge may be used to more effectively lead.

Reference

Joelson, R. (2017). Locus of control: How do we determine our successes or failures? Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moments-matter/201708/locus-control

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1.

A511.3.3.RB - Directive and Supportive Behaviors

In the situational leadership approach there are four styles that a leader may use (Northouse, 2018).  These styles are made up by the level of directive and supportive behaviors used.  The directing style is high directive and low supportive.  The coaching style is high directive and supportive.  The supporting style uses high supportive and low directive.  Lastly, the delegating style is low supportive and directive.

When it comes to my role as a parent, I have to decide which style I choose based on which child I'm dealing with and the situation at hand.  In a situation where safety and/or time are critical, I use a directing style.  When it comes to school or homework related tasks, I use a coaching style.  If we're dealing with a sport or hobby, I use the supporting style.  If I were to use a directing style with my oldest, teenage son, he would likely shutdown and stop listening.  He has a coach that provides the high directive side of things.  What he needs is my support.  If we're talking about my youngest, first grader son and his homework, I can't take a strictly directive style because that may dampen his thirst for learning and knowledge.  Coaching gives me the opportunity to direct him while also supporting the knowledge he already has and encouraging him to explore his own way of getting to the right answers.

In my roles at work, my decision on style is mostly dependent on the person with which I'm dealing.  My boss gets a supporting style.  I can do this by taking the more tactical and operational things off his plate, so he can focus on the more strategic tasks at hand.  With my peers, I may use either a supporting or coaching style.  On subjects in which I'm considered an expert, I take a more coaching style.  In areas that I'm not familiar with, I use a supporting style; I'll ask, "how can I use my skills or expertise to help you?"  When I was a direct, front-line supervisor I used either a supporting or delegating style.  For the regular tasks, I simply assign task to the right person and they handle the rest.  I would also take time to regularly ask the mechanics if they had all of the tools they needed to accomplish their work.  Or maybe they had heard of a new tool or material that they might want to try.  In those instances, I supported them by getting them what they needed.

As the name implies, the situational approach to leadership is all about accurately interpreting the relationship with the person and the task they need to accomplish.  A good leader can accomplish that interpretation quickly and pivot to different styles as the situation changes.

References

Northouse, P. (2018).  Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th ed. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.

A511.2.3.RB - Reflecting on Leadership Traits

Northouse (2018) references Stogdill (1974) when he talk about how there aren't any certain collection of traits that make a leader in every circumstance.  This really resonated with me because of the variety of situations I have found myself in, as a leader.  To me, what Northouse and Stogdill meant, is that the traits that make a good leader on the battlefield don't make the same person a good leader in the boardroom.  Unyielding determination is a necessity in one arena and a potential liability in another.  Compassion makes the c-suite executive approachable, but can cause a life threatening hesitation for the line officer.  Both stand to gain from an ability to quickly assess situations and the willingness to act.

One of my key leadership traits, that has served me well in both the military and civilian worlds, is adaptability.  On the military side, it means landing in an unknown situation and getting to business as quickly as possible.  In the civilian world, it has meant being able to take on totally new projects without worry.  I'll find a way to get things done, one way or another.  Where some people pride themselves on their rigidness or unwillingness to bend to a situation, I see that as a weakness.  It makes you easy to predict and exploitable.  I do wonder what traits I have, that I don't necessarily see in myself, but others see in me.

References

Northouse, P. (2018).  Leadership: Theory and Practice 8th ed. SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.