The Leadership Approaches by Neil Armstrong - Essay Example

THE LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOURS OF NEIL ARMSTRONG Name Grade Course Tutor’s Name Date Introduction A leader is a pathfinder who works and belongs to an organisation (Lussier & Achua, 2010). A leader has the mandate to set a direction, a vision and future for the organisation. This role has been theorised to give a clear approach of different leadership models. Leadership models have transformed over the years. However, Lussier & Achua (2010) claim that leadership behaviour still reassembles those of ancient leaders. An example is Neil Armstrong of the Apollo mission. Neil Armstrong was born in Wapakota Ohio august 5th 1930 (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). He is a well-known astronaut, and is famous for being the first human to walk on the moon (Associated Press, 2012). He studied aeronautical engineering at Purdue University under US navy scholarship (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). While, at the navy, Neil Armstrong rose to a leadership position and became a commander. He carried out key, decisive missions while at this position. His approach to leadership captures the skills that most people would wish to possess. He led the mission from the front (David Thomas, 2012). Neil had portrayed the strategy of taking charge in all the decisions and skills of leadership he undertook. His actions were modest and self-effacing (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). This paper critically analyses the leadership approach and behaviour of Neil Armstrong while relating the model of leadership he portrayed to a specified leadership theory. Neil Armstrong was to be a charismatic leader with qualities such as vision, unshakable, self-confidence and willingness to sacrifice. This character was also displayed when Armstrong opted to sacrifice his life and travel to the moon. He also risked separating from his friends and family as he took the trip. He was quite visionary when he used to articulate the nature of future vision as the future mission of man on the moon (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). His vision was fulfilled when he signed up for the Apollo mission. Armstrong and his crewmembers were acting on the national goal set by President John F. Kennedy of performing a crewed lunar landing and return to earth (What Neil Armstrong teaches us, 2012). His unshakable self-confidence was outlaid when he decided to land the Apollo on moon manually (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). He also made other decisive measures of moving crew rest to push the mission forward. These characteristics show that Armstrong was hugely indulgent in his leadership approach. The approach he portrays in his leadership skills can be theorised as immense value in terms of skills (Chris Chandler, 2009). As demonstrated by Neil Armstrong, the expert power skill and knowledge results to change in the organisation. He achieved to impress in leadership since he began to lead himself before leading others. This approach fits in several theories. The basic concept that describes it well is 'divide and rule' concept. However, Armstrong appears to be a natural team worker. His heroic character and leadership has produced an aphorism stating leadership is a service and not a selfish act. Neil Armstrong was a hands-on administrator of the Apollo program (What Neil Armstrong teaches us, 2012). He attended all the meetings supervised all contractors and over saw the installations just in case any problem might occur. This showed how supportive and people oriented leader he was during the period he worked with NASA. One way to theorise Neil leadership approach is to compare it with the Machiavelli model. In comparison, Armstrong kept insisting that he was just doing his job whenever he made decisions in the organisation. The Machiavellian model implies that the leader will lead the organisation and make decisions that are not self beneficial but in reliance to ethics (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In addition, the subtle of his approach leads to the realisation of future opportunities. This may empower others to act and achieve more organisation benefits as they give efficient services to the organisation (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This was replicated well by the crewmembers that Armstrong led to the moon. Having set a clear vision of the mission to the moon, the subordinates were to follow the direction given by Armstrong and in the end, they all benefited as being named the successful Apollo mission team. According to Lovell a subordinate to Neil in Apollo, Armstrong never allowed anything got to his way when he wanted to achieve anything. This drive motivated many in NASA, as well the US navy. The approach can also be theorised as a military model where the military background in his organisation had instilled influence in all the decision he made. Armstrong was viewed as a general inspiring and a corporate person while at Apollo mission. These elements are similar to military model of leadership. The morale he had to undertake the mission perceives the intangible force he used to move the entire team under him to achieve the mission. In addition to the elements above the military model requires the leader to have foundation such as intellectual and resourceful. Neil had studied up to the university hence his level of intellectual capacity was tremendous (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). Other factors associated with this leadership approach are planning initiating, controlling supporting and informing (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Armstrong could relay all these elements in his leadership skills. For instance, his colleague at the workstation looked up to him for support. He had a cordial relationship with his peers hence he was the main point of referent. In relation to trait theory paradigm, Neil Armstrong displays differences in accounting for leadership effectiveness. His energy dominance on decision and self-confidence fits with the trait theory. Neil shows stability and integrity as he steers Apollo II to the moon (A+E Networks Biography, 2012. His action on landing the ship manually to the moon shows that his locus to control was strong in his leadership behaviour. In addition to these traits, Armstrong was sensitive to others case for instance his decision to swap the ship crew. The trait theory continues to fill numerous elements with regard to Neil’s leadership approach (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The theory applauds the personality Armstrong exhibits in all his actions around the workstation. Neil Armstrong fulfils the critical role of a leader according to Sayles. Armstrong facilitates coordination and integration in order to get work done (Chris Chandler, 2009). Sayles further analyses this trait of leadership as adapting modifying and adjusting the complex function and interfaces. The trait keeps the alignment of his followers instead of focusing on vision and inspiration. This will result to positive integration of outputs from the organisation’s activities (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Armstrong’s style of leadership has depicted this extremely well with much of credit going his way after successful Apollo mission. Apart from the trait theory, the behavioural leadership theory attempts to describe him as a distinctive leader with effective leadership approach. This theory attributes to the nature of work he carried out. He was the overall commander of the Apollo II (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). The leadership style he utilised in his commandership was task-oriented leadership. He ensured that all tasks were performed fully (Chris Chandler 2009). This theory strongly emphasises what the leader does rather than his or her character. This can be well supplemented by situational theory of leadership. This approach of leadership determines the role of a leader according to the situation at hand (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The theory describes the style as the pattern behaviour when attempting to influence the activities of the subordinates in an organisation. The pattern combines the task and process to gauge the result of the organisational activity (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Armstrong leadership was dependence on the situation at that time where he was to lead the three-man crew to lunar and return to earth. This theory, however, overlooks the leader’s personality since the leader will have to conform to different circumstances and situations while delegating duties and responsibilities (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Research shows that the behavioural leadership approach entails that the leader to use task oriented style or people oriented style in delegating duties (Lussier & Achua, 2010). These two aspects can also be used together with much expectation from the followers. Contingency leadership theory also tries to describe Armstrong (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This theory looks at the styles he achieved during his tenure at the helm of US navy. All the contingency theory of leadership styles depends on effective leader’s behaviour towards the followers. This theory explains different leadership models (Lussier & Achua, 2010). One of the styles that come out well is the directive style where all his decisions were based on the environmental tasks. The subordinates under Neil Armstrong expect authority leadership in order to provide job satisfaction. Another style that Neil displays remarkably well under this theory is supportive leadership style. Neil Armstrong depicts supportive leadership when he assists his crew in checking up the spaceship and manually landing Apollo at the moon. In this style, the followers’ ability to undertake task is quite high (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Participative style under Contingency theory allows the leader, and the followers to be involved in all the tasks (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This scenario relates to the case study of Apollo mission where the commander Neil Armstrong was participating in undertaking the tasks in the mission. In addition, Neil uses this style while still at the navy. This allowed Neil to have co-workers on a high note towards job satisfaction. This is also in line with achievement-oriented style where Commander Neil Armstrong had set up achievable goals in his quest to be the first man to set foot on the moon (David Thomas, 2012). He had the urge to be part of the astronaut team on the mission to the moon. Armstrong provides directive and high support behaviour (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This theory depicts that the follower will always open up to autocratic leadership approach similar to what took place in Apollo II (Lussier & Achua, 2010). All the crew of the space ship were submissive to Neil Armstrong and usually consulted him on directives and decisions taken while at the mission. The great man theory has also attempted to theorise Armstrong leadership approach. This theory categorises the leadership as an innate within a person that is unexplained (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This theory highlights that a leader will exhibit characters similar to mere mortals as well as incomprehensible leadership skills. Armstrong displays these characters when stepped up to undertake the mission to the moon. He was seen as a hero with his friends and family (What Neil Armstrong teaches us, 2012). His commandership of Apollo II to the moon and making this mission a success termed him as hero for the NASA project (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). Armstrong decided to take up the mission of going to the moon sacrificing the opportunity to be with his family and friends by travelling to the moon. The theory can also be related to the statement he made in an interview after the successful mission. He notes that the small step he made the moon should be perceived as a huge leap by humankind (Associated Press, 2012). Astronauts in NASA acknowledges Armstrong’s inspirational mission to the moon hence they brand him the step man. Another leadership theory is the power and influence theory (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This theory concentrates on the network of power and influence brought about by the leaders. After the successive Apollo II trip to the moon, many other astronauts emulated from his confident character and signed up for the mission. The successful trip was also a revelation to other super powers of the world to come up with brighter technology. Twelve trips were made to the, moon before Neil Armstrong retired. This is a clear indication that Armstrong was an excellence influence towards excellence of NASA (David Thomas, 2012). It also allowed him to carry transactional leadership theory since he had developed mutual relationship between him and his subordinates. The mutual benefit that exists between leaders and the subordinates enhances commitment and acceptance of the leaders’ authority. Neil’s leadership approach can also be compared to attribution leadership theory (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Armstrong may have attributed his leadership skills from a certain leader. His followership is concentrating on the nature of work and submitting to the law of employment. This theory almost resembles the transformational theory. However, transformational theory explains the how leadership models used utilises the extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors to impact change in an organisation (Lussier & Achua, 2010). It depicts a transformational leader as being proactive and innovative visionary. Neil Armstrong has a strong, visionary character and quite proactive in all his action (Lussier & Achua, 2010). For instance, he had a goal of once in his life to step on the moon, and he accomplished this goal. His innovations can be reflected on his work as an aeronautical lecturer at the university. Lussier & Achua (2010) implies that a decent transformational leader of Commander Neil Armstrong calibre should display an encouraging heart, models the followers towards achieving their goals, inspiring a shared vision and challenging the system or process. The charismatic leadership and value based leadership approach in Neil Armstrong tenure describes the path goal theory, which brings together all the contingency styles and harmonizes them to ensure job satisfaction (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This contributes appropriate framework in ensuring relevant situational variables (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Neil used the guidelines from the conceptual framework to make appropriate judgement and calls that made him a successful commander (David Thomas, 2012). Furthermore, a normative leadership model comes out strongly when making developmental decisions. Although Armstrong did not rely much on normative style, some elements of his decision-making procedures were based on normative model. Analysts argue that normative leadership style determines the best style of leading followers in an organisation. This model provides a set of sequential norms that the leader ensure all his followers adhere. These norms only limit the leader to specific decisions (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The leader also enjoys authority and participative followers. The skill a leader develops through this theory is more profitable to self-development as well as an enhancement of personal traits. Research carried out show that leaders using the normative style in decision-making are twice as likely to be successful as those leaders using other leadership models (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Since leadership styles evolve, leaders tend to develop new skills to enhance their leadership approach. For instance, Neil Armstrong had to incorporate several leadership models according to analysts. The research further advocates that new models incorporate lots of teamwork and higher participation between the leaders and followers (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In review to Armstrong’s approach, he had in cooperated both behavioural and contingency leadership. This, however, according to researchers does not advocate yield much success. Analyst argues that all leadership behaviours are similar. These behaviour and traits only differ in concept. Hence, merging different theories will need much convincing of the followers. The leadership system will require the ability to convince followers to agree to the directions of the leader (Lussier & Achua, 2010). The research analysts have intensified comparison of the leadership approaches being attributed recently to those that were utilised by Neil Armstrong and fellow leaders at that time. Leaders in this recent time have shifted focus on seeking consensus in decisive matters that affect the organisation thus, leadership being termed as a humane art. These analysts have placed preference to prescriptive models especially the easy ones as compared to the complex ones (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Armstrong had a unique way of delegating the tasks and directing the organisation. His solid theoretical foundation disapproves these findings made by researchers. In an analysis, Armstrong leadership approach substitutes the theory and places the traits and behaviour as the main referencing elements in evaluating his style. The analyst argues looks at it this way because they believe that certain situational variables prevented the leader from effecting subordinates attitudes and behaviour (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This comes out well since the research questions the ability of Armstrong delegating certain duties to his subordinates rather than him doing it by himself (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). The substitute for leadership style makes the current leadership approach to be unnecessary or redundant. The highly skilled workers in the US navy would hardly need the leadership behaviour in order for them to carry out their tasks. However, presence of a commander will always affect positive work ethics among the subordinates. On the contrary, several factors may be a negative influence of the contingency leadership theory (Lussier & Achua, 2010). These variables are perceived to be key neutralizers of the leadership roles. The variables include; characteristics of followers in terms of knowledge, experience training and professional orientation. Other variable are characteristic of the task to be undertaken, and the characteristic of the organisation, for example, inflexibility, plan, goals and responsibility (Lussier & Achua, 2010). All these variables were well articulated by Armstrong in his leadership approach (David Thomas, 2012). He had covered up a spatial distance between the leader and the followers in order to ensure that he understands the nature and characteristics of the tasks he delegates, as well as that of the followers. This enabled him at all times to have control and experience a closely-knit cohesive work groups (Lussier & Achua, 2010). In the recent times such, a move of substituting leadership behaviour results to relative strong relationship among the employees and their leader. In addition to that, the power influence gives an assumption that the strength of the organisation culture is still a crucial element in decision-making (David Thomas, 2012). Lessons learnt from the leadership skills of Neil Armstrong Today leadership has transformed entirely, and it will need one to give up control in order to achieve results. Leaders have turned out to be coaches and not boss (Lussier & Achua, 2010). This is a favourable sign since the relationship between the leader and follower grown closer. The contingency attempt to select situational variables has best indicated appropriate leadership style for all circumstances. The leader also has to use superior intelligence in troubleshooting a problem. Furthermore, the leader has to portray positive energy all the time in order to keep away stress. This recommends that leaders should adapt different leadership styles since leadership success requires one to be familiar with the best leadership style for each situation. Armstrong himself came to see the value of leadership styles when much publicity about his decisive roles came to the limelight. However, he used to see himself as not being taciturn hence; he kept away from cameras and interviews (What Neil Armstrong teaches us, 2012). Successful leadership requires one to be highly flexible to overcome obstacles for instance, mechanical failure that Neil had an easy time to deal with that issue in the Apollo mission. It is prudent that perseverance is a key element in every leader’s character. This virtue is essential to make one undertake the responsibility given to him or her as a leader. This virtue propelled Neil Armstrong virtue to greater heights. Successful leadership requires one to be highly flexible to overcome obstacles for instance, mechanical failure that Neil had an easy time to deal with that issue in the Apollo mission (A+E Networks Biography, 2012). Conclusion This report highlights on both behavioural and trait leadership approach used by Neil Armstrong. It also attempts to theorise the best leadership style that suits him while he was at his career. Further still the thesis has highlighted on major lessons learnt by the leadership skills and traits exhibited by Neil Armstrong. Neil Armstrong’s leadership skills can be applied in many leadership studies. The outcomes and results discussed in the report will assist institutions to improve their leadership approaches. References A+E Networks Biography. (2012). Neil Armstrong biography. Retrieved October 01, 2012, from Neil Armstrong biography: http://www.biography.com/people/neil-armstrong-9188943?page=1 Associated Press. (2012). World-Neil Armstrong: One-letter word missing from famous ‘mankind’ quote. Retrieved October 01, 2012, from National Post: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/26/neil-armstrong-one-letter-word-missing-from-famous-mankind-quote/ Chris Chandler, A. R. (2009). After walking on moon, astronauts trod various paths. Retrieved 10 01, 2012, from CNN.com/technology: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/17/life.after.moon.landing/index.html David Thomas, T. L. (2012). A reluctant icon: His ice-cool courage held the world spellbound, but Neil Armstrong HATED being a hero. Retrieved October 01, 2012, from Mailonline: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2194053/Neil-Armstrong-dead-How-HATED-hero.html Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. (2009). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill. Mason, OH: South-Western, Cengage Learning What Neil Armstrong teaches us about leadership and success. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/shift/index.php/2012/08/28/what-neil-armstrong-can-teach-us-about-leadership-success-and-ourselves/ Read More