Leadership: Personal Development - Assignment Example

Leadership: Personal Development Report Personal Evaluation on Leadership I evaluated my leadership using the following tools: my initial self-analysis, SWOT analysis, Johari Window Self Awareness, Memletics-Learning-Styles Inventory, and a self-coaching tool. The results of which are discussed below. Initially, before having gone through these self-evaluating tools, I see myself to be good in coaching and mentoring, because I remember, when I was in college I scored high in the coaching area, although in another scenario, it appeared that I needed to improve my communication skills because it turned out from the result that I am not a good listener, and this is an important area of weakness in coaching and mentoring, because as what Megginson and Clutterbuck (2005, p. 172) said: in mentoring,“... we often follow the line of the [mentee’s] interest... conversation develops from what they say. We... influence the direction by choosing particular aspects of their comments to pick up on.” Thus, to be able to mentor/coach someone, the mentor/coach must be able to understand the mentee and I could not be a good mentor/ coach that would not be possible if I don’t know how to listen to people. The SWOT analysis, an acronym for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, is a four-dimensional model which process is simple and candid (Turner 2001, p. 52) that seeks to measure ones internal strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats that offered by ones external environment. The strengths and opportunities are seen as positive forces, and the weaknesses and threats, as negative forces. As I evaluate my own SWOT analysis, I realised that, I rely too much on my own strength as a leader. Although I am a warm person, and I have good working relations with my colleagues, I missed building relationships that would later be my support structure. This is because I lacked strategic foresight in my work. Meaning to say, I only lead for the present. This I think would have a negative impact on my new work in two ways: first, I was not able to hone my leadership skills for strategic matters and in so doing, I don’t think I did have left an impact on my former co-workers, and my former work. Meaning, I have nothing so especial to contend with especially with those aspirants who think they are far better than I. This means that I have still to prove myself. Second, I did not prepare myself for larger roles like this promotion offered to me today. Although I am a calculated-risk taker, and I love challenges, seeing these as an opportunity to test my maximum capacity and to further improve myself, I would have been more prepared and my adjustment would have been easier. Although my family relationship is very much healthy I know that the bigger demand and more complex nature of my new work will in one way or another strain my family life. But, despite these all, my personal strength as a leader remains, which I could maximise to muster all the support I and the work need to succeed. The Johari window self-awareness tool, named after its creators – Joseph Luft and Harry Ingram, as indicated by the highlighted letters of their names, makes use of two dimensions: the others and the self, which again is divided in two general windows: the known and the unknown, from which four specific windows are used to describe an iondividual: (1) the public arena – one’s public face or the part of self that is known both to self and others; (2) the blind spot – the part of self that is known to others but is unknown to self; (3) the private you – the part of self that is known only to the self; and the area of potential – the part of self that is not yet discovered. (Cook, Macaulay & Coldicott 2004, pp. 181-2). Mine reveals that although a large part of myself is known to public – meaning as I am a transparent leader, I still have a significant portion for blind spot – which I interpret as, my followers lack the confidence to tell me how they perceive me as a leader. This may be is due to the fact that I always try to keep safe distance from my subordinates to keep me from falling into a too familiar relationship with them that might send them a wrong signal, which I believe would negatively affect not only our working relationship but even our work as a whole. My window also shows that I have a large portion for my area of potential. This means that I still have many things to discover about myself, and to be able to do that, I have to take on more challenging jobs and situations. So, accepting the promotion at this point in my life is the best thing to do, as this would give me the opportunity to know how good I am in dealing with more challenging and complex tasks/roles both in the workplace and even at home. I am also thinking that at my age, this realisation seems to be late. I was thinking if I had spent the last past ten years of my life too comfortably that I missed these things? Well, nothing is too late yet, and I am just to glad to discover these things about myself, as I believe that these will me a better leader not only at work but even at home. The next tool I analysed myself with is the Memletics-Learning-Styles Inventory, a tool that helps you recognise which mix of learning style best suits you (‘Memletics Learning Styles Inventory’, 2004, p. 3). When my responses were scored, I came to know that my learning style is a combination of visual, solitary and logical, where logical is more pronounced than solitary and visual, in which these two are almost equal. This is quite surprising to me, because I see myself to be sociable. But, when I analysed the indicators, I came to realise that although it is true that I deal with people quiet easy, since I am basically a warm person, I tend to accomplish things on own. This maybe is also the reason why, despite the fact that I didn’t have relational problems with my two former staff it was because I never subject them to more demanding tasks; that although, I love mentoring them, it was only with regards to what I see they tactically need in their assigned tasks. I never get them think for bigger things. I usually do these things myself. I only get them involve in enhancing their task. And usually I don’t want to put people in a difficult situation, as I feel guilty. I fail to realise that it is in surpassing difficult situations that a person’s area of potential is explored and further developed. Then, I also evaluated myself using the self-coaching tool – a tool that helps you “manage all of your individual potentials, and the potentials that arise from outside of yourself to achieve that which is meaningful for you” (Tremblay 2004, p. 2). Specifically, I utilised the specific tool that centres on setting goals and creating plans, as it sought to assist in determining what do I really wanted (Tremblay 2004, p. 77), and as I read over my written responses, the more I see that I am really more focused in my internal me – meaning what I see is always me and the inner me. I wanted that position and I will gain that by improving myself through studies and gaining experience. I am beginning to doubt whether or not I could be the transformational leader that I wanted myself to be, because even my view of rewards is not in any way at all outward looking; it is still inward looking, like in defining the benefits – I define it job security and higher pay. Well, isn’t this too selfish and in fact, too mediocre? I don’t think that a self-centred person can have the power to transform, because you have to be outward looking, you have to give a part of yourself to be able to transform. How can I transform if I don’t know how to reach out to people? And more importantly, a transformative leader transcends the material needs. Following Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, a transformative leader does not aim for the basic need – the physiological and the security needs, but reaches for the highest ladder of need – the need for self-actualisation (Koontz & Weihrich 2007, pp. 290-91). To sum up, my self-evaluation tells me that as a leader I have the necessary qualities and traits to lead. However, if I would like to be a transformational leader, the type of leader that I wanted to be, because I had personally experienced how fulfilling it was to be under this type of leadership, and more importantly, I believe that this type of leader is what is suited in my organisation, as I am working in an education organisation – which primary role is to transform people into better individuals, then I have to improve my communication skills, specifically listening, and my visionary skills or I call it strategic foresight. Moreover, I guess I have to deal with myself – to be able to share myself to people. And since, I am a family man, that whatever I do; it will surely affect them. So, I think I will have to start my transformative aspirations at home. But how am I going to go about this leadership transformation that I wanted to be? I am planning to go through exercises that will improve my communication skills. Since to transform is to inspire then I have to look for an inspiring cause in my job that will make me move people that will change people to also cause positive change. To do this I have to understand my new work and the community that I will work with. Because, it might be that what will inspire them to act is a change in the organisation’s culture, something like what I had in the motor trade way a decade ago. So again, these two are intertwined: I have to look for a cause that could be my organisation’s cause, and to determine this, I should know how to listen to them. Then I guess, it would help a lot to listen to and read inspiring thoughts of inspiring people. I know this is not easy, so I have to prepare for the challenge, mentally, emotionally and physically. Adair’s (2007, p. 58-9) tips for leadership development suits me: “ Be prepared...Be proactive...Be reflective...” Critique and Reflection on Leadership Theories and Models Leading people is not an easy thing to do, as people are not machines that can just be pushed to accomplish things the way you want it to be. They are thinking and feeling individuals with their own will. And each of them is unique in almost all aspects that constitute humanity. So, it would be unwise to think that one leadership approach is applicable to all. It is therefore not surprising to know varied leadership theories, because leadership is undeniably a complex human phenomenon, as variedly defined and described by different leadership theories such as: (1) the trait leadership theories, also known as ‘Great Man’ theories believe that ‘leaders are born, not made’ (Gill 2006, p. 270); (2) the behaviourist theories, or the leadership-style theories that centre on behaviour within the leader-follower-task context define leadership styles as, directive, consultative, participative, negotiative, and delegative (Gill 2006, p. 44); (3) the transactional theory sees leadership as the ability to manage the daily realities of the organisations through a superior-subordinate incentive-based relationship (Kakabadse & Kakabadse 1999, p.23); (4) the psychodynamic theory determines leadership efficacy as to how efficient the leader directs and guides the members (Kakabadse & Kakabadse 1999, p. 46); (5) the situational theory that challenges the ‘one-best-fit leadership’ view, argues that different situation requires different leadership style (Western 2008, p. 33-34); (6) the contingency theory, a refinement of the situational theory, recognises the vitality of both the individual and the context in which the individual has to lead (Grint 2000, p. 2), thus leadership efficacy is essentially determined by varied situational variables (Barbour 2008, p. 25); (7) the complexity theory sees leadership as an organic adaptive learning system (Burns 2008, p. 24); (8) the transformational theory, which essentially characterises strategic leadership as it sees beyond the present, thereby creating change to better the organisation (Bass & Avolio 1993, p. 112); and (9) the stratified systems theory (SST) postulates that critical tasks of leaders vary as to the level of the organisation; thus, “as one moves higher in the organization, these critical tasks become increasingly complex and qualitatively different” (Phillips & Hunt 1992, p. 5). To facilitate easier understanding, Avery (2004, p. 14) summed-up these varied leadership theories into four paradigms: ‘classical, transactional, visionary, and organic’. These paradigms operate in a continuum and essentially differ as to their basis and source of leadership. The classical paradigm sees leadership as the power to control either through respect or fear; transactional paradigm on the other hand sees leadership as a two-way ticket or a negotiated contract, which popular language simply states as “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours;” the visionary paradigm emphasises the power to inspire people (Goleman, Boyatziz, & McKee 2002, p. 58), stirring-up people’s passion by working through their emotions (Ginsberg & Davies 2007, p. 13); and the organic paradigm sees leadership as “processes of mutual sense making” (Beerel 2009, p. 67), which could be understood as collective leadership. Truly, none of these theories can completely represent what is all there in good leadership, but each of them nevertheless brought into light different aspects that have to be considered for good leadership. For example, classical paradigm which main concern is control in order to achieve desired goals is not necessarily unpleasant or incorrect, because it is true that order is necessary, especially in business, where deadline and quality concretely measures success. The question that concerns me though is the means by which control is achieved, especially so that traditionally control is equated to authority and fear. This, I think, is what’s wrong in this paradigm, because to me, fear is a negative motivation for people, who I believe could be more at their best when respected and cared for. When I was working in the motor trade as a plain employee, I had experienced working with two opposite managing director. The first director we had was people oriented. Although he would only visit us once in a week, his friendly, warm, and respectful treatment of employees, like visiting areas and chatting with individual employees, taking time out to take an interest in what we did in the company and even in our personal life, always leaving us with inspiring thoughts to hold on to better not only our work but even ourselves, created a vibrant atmosphere that inspired each one of us to work more than what we were paid for, because we were happy and contented with what we were doing together. But when the new managing director was appointed, who was the exact opposite of our former boss because he depended more on his authority to get things done than building positive human-working relation with us, dramatically altered the workplace. The company’s culture became too rigid, too task-oriented, and too impersonal, as if employees matter only for the number of work-hours they could contribute to the company. Departments were divided, the vibrant social life stopped, and then, people started to leave, because employees could no longer find meaning in what they do except for their pay. On the other hand, the transactional paradigm, which seemingly promotes symbiotic relationship between the leader and the member, as if the leader and the member are co-equal, is in fact not so different from the classical paradigm in a way that both utilises vertical relationship. Their difference lies on the way their leadership influence is waged. For the transactional paradigm, follower’s needs are addressed not because the leader care for them or the leader wanted them to grow, but simply because the leader expects them to give a better performance when their needs are well provided for. So, it’s essentially the carrot and stick principle. The classical paradigm uses the stick, while the transactional paradigm uses the carrot. Although, it may be better to use carrot than stick in making things done, this will not hold through, especially in today’s highly competitive yet humanistic modern society. To approximate the different leadership theories, the trait theories may fall under the classical paradigm, as trait matters a lot in achieving control, while the behavioural theories and psychodynamic theories may fall under the transactional theories, as leadership style matters in persuasion. The other two paradigms: the visionary and organic paradigms are much better because they view leadership with depth and breadth. For example, the visionary paradigm, under which the transformational theory can fall, sees leadership with depth because it does not simply command but it reaches out to the heart and reason of the follower until the follower him/herself regard the leader’s call as his/her own, therefore, the follower follows not because of fear, not because of incentive, but because he/she believes in what he/she does. He/she can personally identify with the task, and doing his/her job is his/her self-actualization. This actually was what we had with our former boss in the motor trade. It was really a fulfilling experience. That’s why when he was replaced by his exact opposite; it was really frustrating, because we had known and experience a far better one. On the other hand, the organic paradigm, in which the situational theory, stratified systems theory, contingency theory, and complex theory can be aligned, spouses a wider perspective, in such a way that leadership is not relegated only to a single individual, but the whole organisation cognizant of the fact that the organisation is a social system that is intentionally and unintentionally affected by internal and external variables, which interact under varied conditions thereby requiring different responses. This paradigm clearly recognises that leading an organisation is a dynamic and complex process that requires continuous learning and relearning. In sum, there is no one best way in leading an organisation. Each theory is useful. However, I think, the usefulness of each theory lies on how each is used to support leadership need in a particular context. Although personally, especially in the kind of work-environment that I am in today, which is more people-oriented, I prefer transformational theory, because I believe that it is in being able to transform people that organisation becomes resilient, meaningful, vibrant, and relevant. And organisations last, when they remain relevant in an ever-changing society, just like ours. As I fully agree with Axelrod (2008, p. 3) that modern leadership requires partnership with and cooperation from diverse people, each of whom possesses special knowledge, skills and expertise that may positively contribute unique insights and perspectives that enhance leadership and facilitates higher performance, I still believe that evoking creativity and developing collective or shared leadership from people requires transformational leadership, because the transformational leader can ‘see the forest from the trees’ (Cronin, Hiller & Hill 2006, p. 28). My Personal Leadership Learning Journey Surprisingly, what my journey has taught me is the simple yet elusive realisation that leadership is not taught nor is learned; it is being learned, because as what Vail (1996, cited in Antonacopoulou & Bento 2004, p. 82) had said, “Leadership is learning.” I fully agree that in anything leaders do, ultimately the crux of the matter is to keep on learning together with their people. Thus, leadership development is essentially not simply acquiring tacit knowledge, but in Antonacopoulou & Bento’s words (2004, p. 82) “how to learn how to learn.” And coaching and mentoring is one of the leadership styles that makes one how to learn how to learn. I also learned that personally evaluating one’s own leadership is fundamental to leadership development, because “specific awareness is the first stage to change” (Cook, Macaulay & Coldicott 2004, p. 181) As I have experienced firsthand, self-assessment made me realise the areas that I have to change, to improve, and to learn. Also, by undergoing your self-assessment I realise the following points that in my pursuit as a leader will keep me going: 1. That for self-assessment to truly enlightening, one has to be fully honest. This is not an easy thing to do actually, because it is true that your worst enemy is yourself. In relation to this, the best weapon for anyone to confront one’s self is humility, because this is very important to anyone, be he/she seeks for personal development as a leader or as a simple individual. These two qualities to me, as I learned in my not yet too complex journey, are crucial qualities for anyone to be a good leader, because these are the two qualities that will bring you back to the correct direction, when in your overwhelming successes you suddenly woke up lost in your journey. 2. That as you fulfil your self-evaluation tools with all honesty, you come to know more of yourself, thus contracting your hidden window and even area of potentials. Consequentially, too, as you come to know more of yourself you gain greater confidence and strength in moving forward as a leader, because it is in knowing who you truly are that you are able to function well. 3. That not everything you think about yourself is true. This only strengthens the need for a self-evaluation. 4. That self-evaluation means change, not simply answers, not simply compliance, not simply knowing who you are or what you are or who could you be. Thus, self-evaluation without effecting change is a waste. Most of all, I learned that if to be a leader is not easy, especially in an increasingly complicated world, to be a transformational leader is doubly hard. However, what is most wonderful to know is that “Transformational leadership can be taught and learned” (Bass & Riggio 2006, p. 417), and that among the components of transformational leadership “involves counselling, feedback, and guidance to promote self-understanding, awareness, and an appreciation of the range of potential leadership behaviours used as by effective transformational leaders” (p. 150). Also, I came to learn that I have to really work hard on improving my envisioning and my communication skill both in listening and conveying a vision, as these are important competencies for transformational leadership development (Bass & Riggio 2006, p. 150). It’s very surprising that with this personal development report I have learned a lot regarding leadership. I was even able to look back at my past leadership and managing experiences and had understood them only now. This is such a learning experience. My Personal Action Plan Looking back at my initial personal action plan, I realised that I fail to hit the heart of leadership development that I need so I did revise it. a. Know my superior, the goal of the organisation and what is expected of me and my work. b. Learn the aspiration common to the people in my organisation, by ‘helping without telling’, by listening to their thoughts and feelings silently, by creating a friendly and cooperative working environment, and then ‘building learning relationships’ (Connor & Pokora 2007, p. 23). c. Develop my envisioning skills by learning from examples of effective transformational leaders and taking on a cause that would inspire me to inspire, and to undergo self-introspection exercises. d. Develop my communication skills by undergoing formal training and listening to speeches of effective transformational leaders, and by being an inspiration to my co-workers and my family. In short I need to transform myself to be transformative. Although it might be time-consuming, continuing my development diary in which I write more of my reflections than happenings of the day would help me monitor how far am I going, or how deep I am stuck. Reference List Adair, John 2007, Develop Your Leadership Skills, Kogan Page Limited, GB& US. Antonacopoulou, Elena P., and Bento, Regina F. 2004, “Methods of ‘learning leadershp’: taught and experiential,” in, Leadership in organizations: current issues and key trends, eds. J. Storey, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp. 81-102. Avery, Gayle 2004, Understanding leadership: paradigms and cases, SAGE Publications, UK. Barbour, Danelo 2008, ‘Contingency Theories ‘, in Leadership: the key concepts, eds A. Marturano & J. Gosling, Routledge, New York, pp. 25-27. Bass, Bernard M., and Riggio, Ronald E. 2006, Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey Beerel, Annabel 2009, Leadership and Change Management, SAGE Publications, London. Burns, John S. 2008, ‘Complexity Theory’, in Leadership: the key concepts, eds A. Marturano & J. Gosling, Routledge, New York, pp. 22-25. Cook, Sarah, Macaulay, Steve, and Coldicott, Hilary 2004, Change management excellence: using the four intelligences for successful organizational change, Kogan Page Limited, GB & US. Connor, Mary, and Pokora, Julia 2007, Coaching and Mentoring at Work: Developing Effective Practice, Open University Press, England. Cronin, Brian E., Hiller, Nathan J., and Smith, Stephen R. 2006, ‘Leadership: Seeing the Forest from the Trees’, Corrections Today, August. Gill, Roger 2006, Theory and Practice of Leadership, SAGE Publications, Great Britain. Ginsberg, Rick, and Davies, Timothy Gray 2007, The human side of leadership: navigating emotions at work, Praeger Publisher, US. Grint, Keith 2000, The Arts of Leadership, Oxford University Press, New York. Goleman, Daniel, Boyatzis, Richard E., and McKee, Annie 2002, Primal leadership: learning to lead with emotional intelligence, Harvard Business School Press, US. Kakabadse, Andrew and Kakabadse, Nada 1999, Essence of Leadership, Thomson, UK. Koontz, Harold, and Weihrich, Heinz 2006, Essentials of Management: An International Perspective, 7th edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi. Megginson, David, and Clutterbuck, David 2005, Techniques for coaching and mentoring, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington. ‘Memletics Accelerated Learning Styles Inventory’, 2003, Advanogy.com, viewed 16 March 2010, < http://www.learning-styles-online.com/inventory/Memletics-Learning-Styles-Inventory.pdf>. Phillips, Robert L., and Hunt, James G. 1992, ‘Strategic Leadership: An Introduction’, in Strategic Leadership: A Multiorganizational-Level Perspective, eds Robert L. Phillips and James G. Hunt, Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp.3-13. Tremblay, Jo-Ann L. 2004, The Self-Coaching Toolbox: Six Tools for Personal & Professional Growth & Development, General Store Publishing House, Canada. Turner, Myra Faye 2001, ‘How Does Your Company Measure Up?’ Black Enterprise, vol. 32, no. 4, p. 52. Western, Simon 2008, Leadership: a critical text, SAGE Publications, Great Britain. Read More