Effective Attributes of Followers in a Leadership Process - Dissertation Example

This report is a critical reflection of negotiation activities within a virtual learning environment. The learner was a participant in a negotiations course designed to simulate real-world negotiations to allow transferrable skills into a potential future leadership position. This report will be structured using the diagram in Appendix A from Oxford Brooks University (2009), the Gibbs Reflective Cycle from 1988. This cycle is a six step framework showing a description of the event or phenomenon, feelings during the course of what is described, evaluation of the event, analysis of the event, conclusions, and an action plan for any future similar activities. The opening focuses on reflections of the event of the negotiation activities within a virtual learning environment (Lewicki, Saunders, Minton, & Barry, 2003; McKeachie & Svinickie, 2011; Oxford Brooks University, 2009). It is argued that the negotiations course was successful in preparing the learner for further leadership roles (Brookfield, 1995; McKeachie & Svinickie, 2011). Further comments focus on the learner’s style of negotiation and reactions to others during the negotiation process (Antelo, Prilipko, & Sheridan-Pereira, 2010; Balez, 2008; Changingminds.org, 2011, Dunn, 1989, Hudson, 2002-03; Lewicki et al., 2003; Myers, 2009; Shockley-Zalabak, 2002; Shepard, 2010; Verderber, 1990). This report explores how success was achieved in the project, reflected upon, and based on that success, the literature, and personal insight from the reflection further recommendations are made. Keywords: negotiation skills, leadership skills, Gibbs reflective cycle, virtual learning environment, critical reflection Description I sat down to review what I knew so far. My plant was responsible for manufacturing and assembling parts that were suffering from a high incidence of quality issues with massive rejection rates at the customer site. The quality issues had not been resolved and my quality inspectors had uncovered that the problems were, at least in part, due to another division’s parts that were supplied to my plant. I had gotten word that the other plant’s staff and their plant manager had refused to take responsibility. I thought the other plant manager was unfairly and inaccurately interpreting the term “95% level of quality approval”. The thought of my and my plant’s staff being unfairly blamed for a serious problem at the customer site infuriated me. I have a lot of pride in my work and the work of my staff and I do not take well to others insulting work that has been performed in good faith. I quickly made the assumption before negotiations even started that I would have an uphill battle getting the other plant to consider paying for their fair share of the quality problems. I mentally prepared to engage in hard ball negotiations because the other plant manager had seemingly been so uncooperative with my needs and complaints up till now. As I sat there gathering my thoughts as to what I would do first I thought, “No wonder I feel sick to my stomach”. I learned later my physical reaction to the situation was due to my inability to keep my focus on my internal locus of control. At that time I was working and going to school full-time and I learned in one of my undergraduate classes that a persons perception of the source of his or her fate is termed locus of control. Those with an internal locus of control believe they are in control of their destiny or what may or may not occur in their environment. That is what I like to focus on when things are going well. But those guided by an external locus of control are those guided by something outside of him or her. That is what I focus on when things are not going as well. When externals are faced with a stressor they are more likely to be stressed, passive, and defensive. This focus on the external factors caused me great stress and is something I still have to continue to watch for. Just thinking about the event at that time makes my stomach hurt all over again and I flash through my mind other situations where I have felt incompetent or unsure of myself. Now I wonder, why was I thinking of myself in this way? Where did my confidence go? My negotiation strategy was a relatively minor issue looking back on the actual negotiations itself. What really complicated the negotiation process was how I felt about myself in this process. I was so afraid that the plant manager I was ordered to negotiate with would resort to being a bully and playing hardball - so much so that I froze up initially. I didn’t initially send any communications at first because I had not gotten a proposal early in our talks or anything specific from the other plant manager other than the email contact which didn’t sound very cooperative. I waited and as she remained silent, I started thinking maybe I would feel less nervous by taking control. Not with an angry tone, but approaching the plant manager in the way I would want to be approached. With the tone that we have a mutual problem, our parts are getting rejected and what can we do to solve this mutual problem? To do so I proposed an agenda and allowed her to give input to form the agenda, for a meeting to discuss “our issues”. I thought I would engage her in the process upfront and have her feel ownership in the establishment of the agenda and help guide her where I needed her to go. I also thought a more structured approach would help to prevent me from falling into an argument over concessions and stay focused on the overall goal of developing an agreed to plan to prevent our boss from jumping into solve our problem. I also was trying madly to think of ways to avoid getting defensive from any response I might get from her. At this point in the negotiation process I was nervous and anticipated what might come next. Even though roles had seemed to be defined, I wondered what might change. You never know about negotiations. Each of us participating in the negotiation had a role and with that role we had responsibilities. The social status is indicated by behavior and looking back on this negotiation, I realize my perceived social status was and still is my main concern. Would I lose status within my employer if this negotiation didn’t go well? If I had failed in this negotiation, my boss would have had to intervene and I would have been embarrassed because it would have been public knowledge that I was unable to handle an assignment. I remember thinking I didn’t normally take on things that I had such a high chance of failing. But in negotiations, it is at least a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. There is a 50% chance that you will get what you want and a 50% chance that the other party will get what they want. I didn’t see any grey area. Finally, after what seemed like a forever waiting game indeed, I emailed the plant manager a proposed agenda, a phone meeting and with that a compromise solution for both of us. From that point everything seemed to flow smoothly and the dialogue between the other plant manager and I was off and running in what seemed at the time to be a positive and productive manner. My opening statement included ground rules and I showed that I was flexible and willing to accept points of disagreement and that I had responsibility for a portion of the costs. I could feel my confidence returning and I was beginning to lose that feeling of nausea even though I was far from being comfortable with the process. I still wondered in the back of mind if I knew what I was doing and many questions went through my mind in the form of what ifs…..The other plant manager then proposes that if I assume responsibility for past costs related to defects, she will absorb future costs. Looking back on it, this agreeable attitude clearly benefited the other plant manager, in that it helps her to achieve her goal of not having to bear the expense for past faulty modules, other than sending over a repair person which was her preference. I thought at the time that I sincerely wanted what was best for both plants, but looking back on it, I can see that I really wanted what was best for me. I thought I was looking for common ground that we could base our discussion on and I did find superficial negotiating points so the other side would feel they were bargaining with me. But what I really wanted was to make sure the VP of manufacturing did not get involved in this transaction and that the VP saw me in a positive light. I didn’t care about mutually beneficial interests or the results of the negotiations. I simply had a goal and wanted to make sure I met it. I said whatever I needed to say to do that. Sounds pretty cold hearted to me now. The only thing that makes me feel better is having the knowledge that this was a mock negotiation for a class for my undergraduate program. If not, these reflections would make me wonder if I had a heart. I began rushing to pat myself on the back for what seemed like an immediate success showing self-serving bias. My undergraduate studies showed me that my motivation was and for the most part remains self-serving. Humans take credit for success and deflect personal responsibility to others when failure occurs. I was very quick to do give myself credit as that is what this was all about for me. Until I reflected fully on this event, I didn’t realize how quickly I resorted to a self-serving perspective. I am quick to take credit and quick to deflect personal responsibility. This is a quality I need to work on to more evenly balance in life. This is a quality left as it is that could hurt me in negotiations results. Rather than be suspicious of the other sides’ ready agreement to my proposal and question whether I had been too generous, I was breaking my arm to congratulate myself on being the first one to make a move and to get such a warm response from the other side. Feelings This negotiation was not starting out well at all and I had the butterflies in my stomach and the heart palpitations to prove it. I felt like I could throw up. The president of the company had informed me that I needed to negotiate with my fellow plant manager to resolve the problem with the rejected parts coming into inspection before the VP of manufacturing got involved. It was that word – negotiate. I was never much good at negotiating. I had been promoted because I was a good engineer. I was and basically still am one of those people that just pay the sticker price. Negotiating was never my forte. But now, I had to get good at negotiating really quickly. I was really worried when I immediately began floundering looking over the details of the problem presented. I initially got all caught up in the details and some of the statements that had been made by the staff of the other plant such as “they have refused to take responsibility for them” (referring to the defective parts from the other plant). I was angry that the other plant wouldn’t take some responsibility for their part in the problem and I was fighting not to come back with a defensive response or an angry opening. Initially communication between the two of us was quiet. I was waiting for her and (I assumed) she was waiting for me. My feelings about this negotiation began prior to the start of the negotiation and are continuing through today. I realize now it is the word and the experience of negotiations. There is an emphasis on win – lose and the significant chance of losing credibility of the other side bullies one into submission. That is not something I am comfortable with. I pictured negotiations as something people did around a table with cigarettes and cigars, a lot of yelling and screaming and walking off, with no one happy and neither side getting what they wanted. Prior to the negotiation, I was nervous because I had never conducted a negotiation and I had no idea what to expect – not really. I was not expecting the plant manager to be so positive and cooperative and was relieved when she was approached me with a friendly demeanor. The feelings come back to me now of being flooded with relief at how positive her response was to me because I was so afraid I would have to play hardball and I did not want to do that. I can remember how my stomach hurt at the thought of her just shutting down at my proposals, which did not happen at all, but could have happened. The stress of dealing with the unexpected in negotiations is what could keep me from it in the future. It was very stressful then and still is now just thinking about the negotiation process and how to keep the VP of manufacturing from getting involved. I am a very independent person and the thought of my leader having to become involved with my operations that I am responsible for horrifies me. That may have been why I took this particular negotiation so seriously. There was only one stated goal and that was to make sure the boss didn’t get involved, but I felt there was a lot more on the line than that. Looking back on it now it must have been my personal pride and ego. The pressure was equally on the two of us plant managers to work the issue out between ourselves, but I felt it was on me 100% to take the lead and the responsibility for the results. I was very unsure of myself initially, but I gained confidence as I saw the other plant manager responded positively to the approach I was using. The more agreeable she became, the more I considered doing for her for the betterment of both of us or “the cause” of getting a good quality product out the door. The reaction I had to being more agreeable as I saw her being agreeable is known as a form of confirmation bias, which in this case seemed to work to both our advantage. She was positive in her response, so I was positive in my response. In my studies, I learned Bales calls this reaction of mine from positive to positive - a confirmation bias. If one expects the best from another that is what one will receive. Conversely, if one expects the worst treatment, this is what one will receive. I didn’t feel I gave a concession under pressure, because my agreements made sense and seemed the best solution for both of us. At least that is what I told myself at the time to justify my proposal and subsequent negotiations. It sounded good. In reality, I don’t wonder now if the other plant manager didn’t have control from the beginning. I feel foolish now to think that all this time I thought of myself as the winner in this scenario and I was really the one taken advantage of. That very well could have happened and to this day I still would have no clue. Evaluation Reflecting on the reflection of the negotiations led me to the conclusion that my main goal was to avoid embarrassment or loss of credibility in my work. This I cannot say for certain that I succeeded in doing. It is easy to sound experienced and self-confident, but when presented with a scenario where self-confidence is tested, my main concern was protecting my self-esteem. I seemed to do so on the surface, but I am not 100% confident that I did in the long run of the negotiation. This reaction now is called self-doubt. I don’t have a citation, but I know this is what it is called. I am questioning my negotiation abilities then and now due to gaps in the results of this event that I am now reviewing. This is a dilemma of critical reflection. If not handled by the participant in the proper mental processing, the participant can be left lost and broken. I am going to say, for now, to the best of my knowledge, my strategy to be the first in the water, worked better than I ever imagined given the context of the initial negotiations. From my initial proposed agenda to the final concessions and agreements I felt the entire progression was a very positive and collaborative process at the time it occurred. The plant manager was agreeable from the first response to the end. What I had expected was not what happened at all. In fact, it was shockingly different than what I had anticipated. Now, when I think back, and I see how different the scenario was than what was painted, before the negotiation started, I am bewildered as to why the negotiations went so smoothly. And why had there been so much negative communication? What other conversations had taken place within the leadership team and that plant manager to make her so agreeable all of a sudden. Not that the plant manager agreed to pay for all defective parts or even that I asked for that, but we began with statements of commitment that it was equally important to both of us to develop a working plan to prevent the VP from getting involved. Did she get the same cautionary statement from the CEO that I had received? After getting side tracked with details I got my footing and I proceeded successfully. Reflecting on this now I realize this is how I operate in real life. This ability to be able to relate lessons learned to the real world is called self-awareness. In my undergraduate studies, one of my texts point out that self-awareness is a person’s ability to be sensitive about what they may be thinking or doing and how they come across and then make adjustments to others accordingly. Those that have low self-awareness are unlikely to get ahead. I do get side tracked with details and lose sight of the main point of focus or the goal sometimes, but thankfully, I am aware that I do this as I did in this case. I have asked others about this and they have told me that I do get on their nerves and it seems I do not make progress quickly enough. They perceive me as procrastinating, when in my mind I am focusing on a quality product. When I recognized this was happening in the scenario provided, I told myself, not to worry if I was focusing on the details and to keep moving forward with what the case study had asked me to do. I refocused and moved on. My personality type is analytical, introverted, reserved, curious, precise, and independent. Being aware of this, I am able to guard myself from losing sight of the goal at hand and to stay focused. Due to reconstructive memory these negotiation events are as I want to remember them. People try to make memories fit in with their own mental models. In other words, I remember this negotiation event in the way it would best suit me to remember it. To get a more accurate picture of the event, gathering data from others who participated would be more appropriate, but, I am not worried about accuracy as I am not concerned with reflections of familiar insights and feelings about an event in this context. Overall, the goals and direction of the negotiation were broadly focused. Individual items that were raised were readily agreed to - with no one single point keeping us at impasse. We both seem satisfied throughout the negotiation, suggesting a win-win agreement. My negotiating strengths are found in the fact that I had the courage to take the first step towards a proposal of a plan and that I was confident enough in my proposal to set it out for the other plant manager to give input to or even disagree with a point. My weakness would be how agreeable I became when the other plant manager was agreeable with me. If the other plant manager had been contentious I might have demanded more from her and not been as willing to eat the past costs as I assumed I would do so readily. However, since I am relying only on my delayed perspective of the event, no doubt the reconstructive memory is coming into play in putting the facts together on my behalf. Analysis The actual negotiations seemed easy once they got started formally as the plant manager’s immediate response was that she understood my position and added what some of her interests were as well, as I had asked her to. My tactics were also grounded in my personal beliefs, values and purpose. Even though it seemed real, I had to keep reminding myself it was a mock negotiations and I could have responded anyway I wished rather than how I would have in real life. I was unable to separate my reactions – mock from real negotiations. My reactions were my reactions – it didn’t matter that it was a mock negotiations or a real negotiations. I wonder now why the other plant manager was so agreeable, when it seemed we had so many issues for potential conflict. Did I push enough? Was I hard enough on issues that would benefit me? Did I leave money on the table? Was it a real positive attitude or an act? Was it a tactic to move my focus to the present and the future solutions rather than the costs of the past? I was agreeable to the other plant manager’s proposals and raised only one concern about timing. The other plant manager followed up with a suggested solution to which I readily agree. I reinforced the idea of establishing a team (using her words of “tiger team”) as well as emotional statements such as being happy and proud to help the other plant manager’s plant operations move forward. I was able to present an agreeable attitude with sincerity because I have a strong self-efficacy or confidence in my ability to complete a task and deal with the ups and downs of life. Those undergraduate studies have come in really handy. I was able to help build the other plant managers’ confidence in the process of winning the negotiations. I did not have to have everything labeled my way for me to reach the goal that was set in the case study. Did she perceive me as being a push over and extremely easy to get what she wanted her way? I am wondering now if my negotiation was just a joke to her. What if negotiations had gone poorly and the plant managers responses had been negative? Was I prepared for that? I can tell you now, absolutely not. Would I have learned more from that reaction? I am sure I would have. I just wouldn’t have liked the responses. And I wonder what things I think go well really are going well and what things I think aren’t going well are truly not going well. Maybe the negotiation I thought I failed with because I couldn’t’ get the price I wanted actually were more successful than this mock negotiation because I developed more negotiation skills as a result of not getting what I wanted. Conclusion I am not described as a fake person by others, I am described as genuine. I don’t like to be positive if I am not feeling positive, but in this case, I think this event teaches me a lesson that I would be wise to take into potential leadership positions with me. That is I would be wise to respond to one another with a positive outcome in mind, rather than a negative outcome in mind. The positive may not prove out in the long run, but the research shows our positive behavior and thinking can have a significant impact on others we are interacting with. This may have been the strategy my fellow plant manager used with me by showing me a positive, cooperative attitude; she was able to generate the same attitude in kind. If our first response is consistently a negative thought pattern or thinking the worst of the other person, social psychology teaches us that will be the logical outcome. Research has proven there is something to be said for using positive imaging and visualizing the positive outcome you desire. One of the many things I learned is that the response you think you are going to get from the other side may be the furthest thing from what the other side is thinking or the way they will respond. Reflecting back on this negotiation is a tool to gain wisdom into other dealings to benefit leadership skills and behaviours. As a potential future leader, I should encourage those around me to search for opportunities by seeking innovative ways to change, grow, and improve. Because I believe in myself, my skills, and my ability to lead, coach, and guide, with the proper preparation, I was unafraid to try something different. Effective leaders encourage the heart which was demonstrated by the confidence I showed in myself by carrying out a mock negotiations. There would have been those who wouldn’t have tried or wouldn’t have selected the class knowing what they had to do. Action Plan I found Gibbs’ reflective cycle states in the action plan portion, that the person reflecting needs to think about what they would do differently if a situation like the one they are reflecting on arose again. In the case of participating in negotiations I should have been much better prepared. What I mean by that is the agenda I started with was fine, but I didn’t think through alternative actions on my part. I simply prepared an agenda and hoped for the best. As I said earlier, fortunately for me, I lucked out and she responded positively. Whether that means I won or not who knows, but at the time I thought it did. Reflecting on situations I have been involved with in the past and the numbers of times I have been surprised by responses I have received – now I know why I have been surprised. I am not anticipating the myriad of possible responses I am likely to get in advance. A mentor might tell me, the other plant manager’s positive approach was too easy for me. I must have been too generous or she wouldn’t have been so positive. As a potential future leader, I do believe I am better prepared for life after completing this reflection exercise. Not only did I reflect on the original intended event, but other events I have experienced have also come to mind. The role of leader in negotiations is a contextual process. Leadership behaviours, belief systems, skills, values, identity, vision, and purpose comprise the key elements to a successful leader framework and are affected by the context. All of these elements are strengthened through this reflective exercise. My negotiation experience and skill development combined with the ability to reflect honestly and openly regarding the outcome would fall under development of all those elements as well. References Antelo, A., Prilipko, E., & Sheridan-Pereira, M.. (2010). Assessing Effective Attributes Of Followers In A Leadership Process. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(10), 1-12. Retrieved February 6, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2195684791). Balez, R. (2008). Social psychology network – Confirmation bias. Retrieved February 2, 2011 from http://search.socialpsychology.org. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. CA: Jossey-Bass. Changingminds.org (2011) Attribution Theory. Retrieved February 9, 2011 from http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/attribution_theory.htm. Dunn, D. S. (1989). Demonstrating a self-serving bias. Teaching of Psychology, 16, 21-22. Hudson, N. (2002-2003). Psychology. Retrieved February 7, 2011 from http://nickoh.com/emacs_files/psychology/13-Feb-2003.htm Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., Minton, J. W. & Barry, B. (2003). Negotiating for Results. NY: McGraw Hill. Mathis, R. & Jackson, J. (1991). Personnel/Human Resource Management. New York, New York: West Publishing Company. McKeachie, W. & Svinicki, M. (2011). McKeachie’s Teaching Tip’s: Strategy, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, Inc. McShane, S. & Von Glinow, M. (2008). Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution. NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Myers, D. G. (2009). Exploring Social Psychology (5th ed). NY: McGraw-Hill. Noe, R., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., and Wright, P. (2003). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage, London: England: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Oxford Brooks University. (2009). About Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle. Retrieved April 2, 2011 from http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/upgrade/a-z/reflective_gibbs.html Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2002). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge, sensitivity, skills, values. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Co. Shepard, J. M. (2010). Sociology (10th ed). CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Publishing. Verderber, R. (1990). Communicate! Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, Inc. Appendix A - About Gibbs reflective cycle Gibbs’ reflective cycle encourages you to think systematically about the phases of an experience or activity, and you should use all the headings to structure your reflection. The reflective cycle (Gibbs 1988) Source: Oxford Brooks University. (2009). About Gibbs’ Reflective Cycle. Read More