The Effects of Leadership and Job Satisfaction on Team Citizenship - Assignment Example

LЕАDЕRSHIР СRITIСАL RЕFLЕСTIОN RЕРОRT (Insert Name of the Student) (Insert Name of the Instructor) (Insert Name of the Course) (Insert Code of the Course) (Insert Submission Date) Introduction Leadership can be defined as a process whereby an individual organises a group of people to perform a given task or in pursuit of a particular goal (Bhatti et al., 2012). Thus to be an effective leader one needs to continually influence the group towards achieving the common goal they set at the beginning. Goals can change though depending on the task but there needs to be effective communication of the same. Leadership therefore cannot work alone. There needs to be an effective team with a common purpose. Lewis, Lippit & White in Manners (2008) identified the following three leadership styles which form the basis of this study: Authoritarian leadership: The leader uses his authority to set direction of the group. He does not consult the subordinates and his decision is final. He also dictates the methods to use in performing the task and he exercises absolute power over the subordinates. This style helps avoid conflicts within the organisation and ensures speedy decision making as there are no consultations. However not many people use it because it has been shown to be the least effective since subordinates feel oppressed. Democratic leadership: This is the most popular style. The leader involves the subordinates in decision making by asking for their opinions and ideas before the implementation of a task. The leader will however make the final decision based on the best ideas. The subordinates are made to feel part of the process and studies have shown that it is the most effective. Laissez faire leadership: In this style the subordinates make their own decisions with very minimal interference from the overall leader. It is mostly used where the subordinates have a high sense of direction and are self-motivated. It is not advisable to use this sort of leadership in short assignments as it takes time for people to attain a high sense of responsibility towards a common goal in a short time. In a study by Manners (2008) on the effectiveness of these leadership styles on a national and county level, he ranked them in a scale of 1-4 where 1 represented most effective and 4 represented least effective as shown below. Preferred Leadership style National Wayne county Authoritarian Leadership 4 3 Democratic Leadership 2 2 Laissez Faire Leadership 1 1 Fig 1 According to Bhatti et al. (2012), a leader sees the future. He can predict situations before they actually happen and therefore for a team to be successful, there has to be effective leadership. This paper explores my reflections on my peer’s leadership and the performance of my team in a given project. Reflection on peer’s leadership Aspects of leadership performed well by my peers The team’s leadership was rotated among two leaders. According to Manners (2008), leadership performance is measured by how successfully the team members perform socially. The first leader was excellent in communication and explaining the group’s task as there was misunderstanding as to the interpretation of the work. The peer then brought together the individual aspects towards one common goal. Everyone was given a chance to share their individual strengths and weaknesses and asked to voluntarily choose their area of interest. This project manager was very good in exercising the democratic leadership style and it made everyone feel appreciated and valued. Sycara & Sukthankar (2006) assert that for a group to perform effectively, they must share a common objective implemented through the leader. The overall task was then broken into simpler tasks for individuals and this quickened the performance of the entire team. The second project manager had a distinct leadership style from the first which was quite beneficial to the overall success of the group as they completed each other. This project manager was able to assert pressure on individual members through setting deadlines and ensuring that they are adhered to. His task orientation was remarkable and set a good example to the members. He set minor goals and individual task deadlines with a day or two before due date for revision and analysis. This helped to assess individual members’ progress in relation to that of the overall group. Aspects of my peer’s leadership that require improvement The first project manager needs to improve on his democratic leadership style. As much as it was encouraging to have everyone’s opinion addressed, it also took a long time to start the project. There was much disagreement and at this point, he should have taken the initiative to summarise the different opinions and come up with a common goal. He instead adapted a Laissez faire kind of style where he allowed the group to come up with a collective goal. Though in this case it worked, it undermined his leadership position. Therefore, he needs to be more assertive. Manners (2008) assert that a democratic leader should ensure he does not lose his leadership position in an effort to empower members. The second project manager needs to work on his listening skills. His high handedness was not always appreciated by the members especially the more reserved ones. Some viewed it as overpowering and as Yun, Cox & Sims (2007) argue, such direct leadership may lead to negative reactions from the members. The pressure to meet deadlines may have led to some members doing work that did not meet the team’s quality in effort to save face. He needs to adapt some traits of democratic leadership such as giving consideration to individual effort and be more tolerant to normal failure. Influence of peer’s leadership over group dynamics Due to the complementing leadership styles of the two project managers, the group had a harmonious working relationship. The democratic experience especially at the group’s formation set an open relationship and members felt at ease to raise any issues. The setting of the common goal and breakdown into simpler individual tasks also helped the members relate their individual performance to the success of the group. This kept everyone motivated. Bass (1990) claims that leaders who are more considerate of their subordinates record a higher performance and the subordinates regard them with a higher regard. Such was the case with this project manager. The authoritarian leader on the other hand kept the team focused and due to his efforts the task was completed in time to the joy of everyone. Influence of peer’s leadership over task performance For an effective team performance, the team need to have good knowledge of the scope of their work and good time management. Since the leaders asked everyone about their opinion I can confidently say that the scope was well communicated. There was also good time management as discussed in subsequent sub-headings and I can attribute this to the overall excellent performance of the team. The influence of the authoritarian leader was most effective in performance as the democratic leader tended to have a more laxative attitude. Influence of peer’s leadership over delegation of responsibility to team members According to Mickan & Rodger (2000), dysfunctional teams are as a result of poor delegation of duties and effective leaders need to involve their team members before giving them duties. They add that team structure has a direct correlation to team performance. The leaders therefore did well in considering the input of all members. It is also worth noting that the members were given duties according to their strengths and previous experience. Influence of peer’s leadership on project success (within time, scope and quality) The project was a real success giving us time to even hold celebrations after the project was completed. The weekly meetings were usually held on Friday afternoons and members were not allowed to exceed the deadline. The managers even encouraged as to hand in our work on Thursdays for prior review. The delegation of the tasks also ensured that the scope of the project was covered in detail. The discussions helped fill in any missing parts. To ensure quality, the leaders encouraged the team to conduct peer reviews for each other. This also enhanced teamwork. Also prior to the due date, we held a full day meeting where we were able to combine all individual work and do thorough review to the satisfaction of all members. Main leadership and management styles employed by my peers The two leaders had two distinctive leadership and management styles. The first project manager had a more democratic style of leadership. Manners (2008) describe a democratic leader as one who provides direction by giving higher consideration of the team member’s ideas to his own. It takes more time to arrive at a logical decision however it makes the members feel important. The manager demonstrated this first when he asked for the interpretation of the task at hand from all the group members. He further proceeded to ask about our strengths and weaknesses and how we can maximise our strengths to the advantage of the whole group. This helped members feel more at ease with each other as we were not all friends. It also helped us to own the whole project. We were able to come up with a common goal as a team which really boosted our morale. The second project manager had an authoritarian style. He was given the task for ensuring that the individual goals were met in due time and of the highest quality. Though his input was not much as that of the democratic leader he really helped us beat the deadline. He particularly jolted me to work faster when I failed to meet one of the deadlines and from that experience I met the rest of the deadlines. He also ensured that the group meetings started and ended on time. He brought some seriousness into the group without which I feel we would not have delivered as anticipated. Main strategy employed by my peers According to Johnson, Scholes & Whittington (2008), a team’s strategy should incorporate their long term goal by providing clear scope and direction in order to fulfil the group’s effort. I credit the group’s success to the strategy that the two leaders employed. They ensured that we had a common goal as well as subsequent small individual goals. They also broke down the overall tasks to individual tasks. The delegation process was very democratic as explained above. My peers ensured that the team had all the resources required to handle the task. They provided links to resourceful libraries and gave freely any articles they felt would help. The authoritarian project manager started weekly meetings where we would meet to discuss our progress. During the first weekly meeting, the manager introduced to us several theoretical models which he felt would work well with us. We settled on Tuckman’s development model since it related to the team’s breakdown of duties. Team performance in relation to a theoretical model Yun, Cox & Sims (2007) asserts that the key to success in an organisation is teamwork. No matter how good the leadership is; if there is no teamwork then the group cannot achieve its goal. Our team success can be attributed to the implementation of the Tuckman’s Team Development Model. The model comprises five stages namely, forming, storming, norming, performing and adjourning. The model initially had the first four stages but in 1965 Dr. Tuckman added the fifth stage that as a team we felt was very vital as explained in the subsequent paragraphs. During forming; the initial stage, the project manager had the team assemble out on the lawn which I found quite relaxing. As Dr Tuckman explains in his model, during forming members need to establish a conducive atmosphere for making contact, developing trust and bonding. The outdoor atmosphere was perfect in creating such. The first project manager stood out from the start before he was actually appointed since he volunteered to make the introductions and make everyone feel at home. His charismatic personality endeared to the team leading to his appointment. He then explained to the entire group about the project at hand. He also gave the individual members an opportunity to explain their interpretation of the project and we settled on one common goal. In the second stage storming, the members voiced out their strengths and weaknesses based on their experiences from prior team obligations. They then discussed potential roles that they would undertake in the project. The team had the advantage of having members with different skills and competencies. This was our greatest resource. As Ainuddin et al. (2007) points out it is vital for a team to identify their indispensable resource to gain competitive advantage and also for superior performance. This process was however marred by lots of arguments and disagreements and it took us quite a while to have mutual agreement. The team agreed on having a second project manager so as to hasten the project and with regard to the disagreements and the total time wasted, more leadership was needed. There is a difference between a leader and a manager and it is difficult for one person to handle both (Cravens, 2013). The first project manager was more of a leader while the second was more of a manager. In the norming stage the overall task was split into smaller individual tasks with members taking responsibility for each. This was essential in ensuring that everyone was responsible for the ultimate success of the team. It also created a sense of ownership of the common goal. The second project manager would be responsible for ensuring that the individual members met their goals and the first project manager would be an overseer of the projects overall progress. The fourth stage in the Tuckman’s model involves performance. The members did a good job at meeting deadlines for their individual tasks. They also observed high quality standards. The second project manager was very successful at pushing members to perform. He did not take lightly failure excuses but I applaud him for leading by example as he always had his task complete in due time. The team also held weekly meetings where we reviewed individual tasks and ensured that we did not stray from the common goal. The members handed in their tasks and we compiled it into a single report. The final stage is the adjourning stage where the members met to review the whole process. It was a moment of joy in seeing the finalisation of the whole project. I applaud my peers for dedication, commitment, and persistence without which we would not have completed the task. The leaders also played a crucial role in maintaining the group’s cohesion; always encouraging and pushing us to the limits. Empowering leadership ensures followers are motivated and willing to perform for the accomplishment of the common goal (Yun, Cox & Sims, 2007). Issues faced as a group and how they were dealt with Positive issues can render a team very strong as much as negative issues can ruin the group (Nelson 1995). If conflicts are handled in the right manner then a team can be very successful. Positive issues The leadership of the team was of utmost importance. The team was lucky to have two project managers with different leadership styles. One was democratic while the other was authoritarian though not overtly so. The democratic leadership helped keep the motivation throughout the project. Being a good listener he was able to calm any storms that arose with ease. The members capitalised on his ability to understand and as such would seek his assistance without fear. Recognition and satisfaction of individual needs raises one’s esteem and an individual is able to relate to a group (William, 2007). The authoritarian leader kept everyone on toes and through his persistence we were able to meet the strict deadlines. As pointed out earlier, the group had an indispensable resource in terms of the skills and competencies possessed by the individual members. There were those who had worked on a similar task and they provided their guidance along the project’s lifetime. They proved to be very resourceful and they helped me especially when it came to research work. The individual tasks were also divided as per the individual’s strength and since all were given the opportunity to pick a task that they deemed best, none felt imposed upon. There was also good communication among the team members. Apart from the occasional misunderstanding which is permissible in a group setting, members did agree on most occasions. This helped in managing tasks, punctual group meetings and the overall accomplishment of the main objective. Negative Issues The diversity in personalities was not always a good thing. Whenever we met for weekly reviews, there was always an argument as members tried to defend their work. Sometimes the disagreements led to temporal paralysis of work and the meetings lasted longer than they should have. The democratic leader helped resolve most of the disagreements since he had forged trust with majority of the members. When issues got out of hand the authoritarian manager took it upon himself to end the disagreement. This method was not popular among the group but it always worked. Manners (2008) agree that such leadership leads to faster decision making. Main contributing factors to team success Sycara and Sukthankar (2006) assert that teamwork is the main contributing factor to the success of a team. Yun, Cox & Sims (2007) on the other hand emphasise the importance of an effective leader before teamwork is addressed. Though both are right in their assertions, there are several contributing factors to a team’s success. Mickan & Rodger (2000) identify three major factors; organisational structures, individual contribution and team processes. In organisational structure the team needs to have a clear goal of what they want to accomplish. The goal should be shared and agreed among all shareholders. In addition, the major goal needs to be broken down into smaller, reasonable and measurable goals. There needs to be a culture of commitment to the team that supersedes the individual commitments otherwise the goals will fall short of expectation. The measurable goals should then be turned into achievable tasks that are given to specific team members with clear job descriptions outlined. The process of delegating roles needs to be democratic to avoid conflicts and feelings of unfairness. The leader of the team should then ensure that the members are able to accomplish their tasks maintaining high quality standards. In terms of individual contribution, members ought to have self-knowledge. They need to know and understand their strengths and weaknesses before they can be able to satisfy the needs of the group. They also need to have trust in the team so that they can be able to share without fear of being looked down upon. Self-knowledge and trust will lead to commitment which is essential in pursuing the team goals. They also ought to be flexible so that they can be able to accommodate others of a different opinion without prejudice. For team processes, there needs to be team cohesion. Members need to work interdependently with the assurance that they are one. For a successful team the feeling of cohesion needs to be high such that the members may want to remain so for a future project. To ensure this cohesion, a team ought to have good communication between the leaders and the members. The common goal needs to be clearly communicated and understood. Since conflicts are inevitable in a team, leaders need to establish good conflict solving measures. Members should feel that conflicts are handled with fairness without fear or favour of seniority. There should also be effective feedback mechanisms between the leaders and the team members. This is important to ensure continuous and fruitful reviews. Without such feedback leaders may presume that all is well yet their team is in disarray. Conclusion and follow-on actions Key lessons learned I learnt that it is of utmost importance to involve acknowledged individual strength and weaknesses of all members as people are very diverse. I noted that every individual is gifted differently and when these gifts are tapped at an initial stage of team work, the performance is usually the best. I learned that as much as democratic leadership style brings out the best in the team members, it may undermine the position of a leader if he was not aggressive enough. Members tend to ignore the rules he implements. Having observed democratic and authoritarian leadership, I now believe that there is no one leadership style that can be used to solely. One needs to exercise a combination of these styles and if not so appoint a second leader with a different style to complement each other. Other than leadership I also learnt the importance of good time management and the delegation of duties. These two go hand in hand. Delegation of duties works best if clearly communicated and it helps to manage time that would be wasted on getting a common understanding. I learnt the value of motivating members often and the need to remind members of the common goal. Plans to develop my leadership capabilities in the future I am naturally a reserved person and I would like to improve on my confidence in front of people. I need to be more assertive and develop the capacity to express my opinion without fear of condemnation. I also need to learn how to handle various personalities bringing out the best in each. References Ainuddin, R. A., Beamish, P. W., Hulland, J. S., & Rouse, M. J. (2007). Resource attributes and firm performance in international joint ventures. Journal of World Business, 42, 47–60. Bass, M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18 (3), 19-31. Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A., & Shaikh, F. M. (2012). The impact of autocratic and democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International Business Research, 5(2), 192-201. Cravens, D. (2013). The difference between leadership and management. Idaho State Journal. Johnson, G., Scholes, K., & Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy (8th edition). Essex: FT Prentice Hall. Manners, A. T. (2008). Influence of transformational, autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire leadership principles on the effectiveness of religious leaders. University of Phoenix. Mickan, S., & Rodger, S. (2000). Characteristics of effective teams: A literature review. Australian Health Review, 23(3), 201-208. Nelson, M. (1995). Interpersonal team leadership skills. Hospital Materiel Management Quarterly, 16(4), 53-53. Sycara K., & Sukthankar G. (2006). Literature Review of Teamwork Models. Pennyslavania: Canergie Melon University. William, H. (2007). Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive, Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Yun S ., Cox J., Sims H. P., & Salam S. (2007). Leadership and Teamwork: The Effects of Leadership and Job Satisfaction on Team Citizenship. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(3), 171-193. Read More