Leadership and Development - Personal Statement Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction 2 Records 4 Curriculum Vitae 4 Darryl Husbands 4 Educational Qualifications 4 1995-1998 4 BSc HonsDegree computer Science, 1st Class 4 Work Experience 4 June 2002- Present 4 May 1999-June 2002 4 Network support engineer. Apart from the requisite technical knowledge, this job required problem analysis and problem solving skills. 4 Jan 1999-May 1999 4 June 1998-Jan 1999 4 ABC Network solutions sales. This entailed selling' the company's information assurance and network security systems to UK companies. Required persuasive and peoples' skills as well as a thorough technical knowledge of the system. 4 Skills 5 Activities/Interests 5 Referees 5 Likes and Dislikes 5 Overview 6 Analysis 7 Incident One 8 Incident Two 10 Incident Three 12 Personal Development Plan 14 Bibliography 17 Introduction The research, which may be identified as a critical analysis of the author's managerial and leadership skills, as deduced from a variety of different tests and scores, seeks the identification of the author's workplace strengths and weaknesses. The purpose of the aforementioned is the articulation of a Leadership and Personal Development Plan which could function as a guide to the author's future development as both a manager and a leader. Indeed, it would neither be an overstatement nor an exaggeration were this research to be described as the author's critical analysis of his personal and professional development potentials as based upon the results of a series of test scores. The first section of the paper is comprised of the author's curriculum vitae, followed by a clarification of his workplace strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes. Following from that, the results of a series of self-administered, self-assessment instruments are presented and subsequently summarized in a SWOT analysis format. The aforementioned analysis focuses on the researcher/author's cognitive style and associate learning style preferences and personality type, including all of attitude towards change, drivers/motivators, interpersonal needs and workplace relationship and behavioural preferences. The second section of the paper, comprising the bulk of the research, critically analyses the information and data presented in the preceding. Added to that, it looks towards three workplace experiences/problems and, through a brief description of each, analysis the author-researcher's workplace behaviour, weaknesses and strengths. The extent to which these correlate with the results of the self administered self-assessment instruments is discussed. The paper concludes with a statement of three development objectives, alongside a plan for the monitoring of the researcher's progress towards their realisation. In other words, the research concludes with a Personal Development Plan, drawing on the totality of the information and data presented in the preceding sections. Records Curriculum Vitae Darryl Husbands Home Address: 123 Street, London LW1 Telephone: 722-7777 Marital Status: Single Mobile: 01234567 Children: 0 Date of Birth: 10-08-1976 Nationality: British Driving Licence: Educational Qualifications Jan 2007 - Present Maters in HRM 2000-2001 CCNA 1998-2000 MSc Computer Science 1st class 1995-1998 BSc Hons Degree computer Science, 1st Class 1994-1995 A Levels Edwards College 1991-1993 GCSE from Edwards College School Work Experience June 2002- Present Network supervisor. May 1999-June 2002 Network support engineer. Apart from the requisite technical knowledge, this job required problem analysis and problem solving skills. Jan 1999-May 1999 On-site work team manager. Responsible for the implementation of the data assurance and network security system purchased from the company and the training of buyer's IT employees in the use of the system. June 1998-Jan 1999 ABC Network solutions sales. This entailed selling' the company's information assurance and network security systems to UK companies. Required persuasive and peoples' skills as well as a thorough technical knowledge of the system. Skills Proficient in MS Office Applications Proficient in Windows NT, service pack 4 Network installations Installation of data assurance and network security systems Excellent interpersonal, organisational and PR skills. Excellent team member and leader Highly organised and efficient People skills Project Management skills Sales skills Adept at problem solving Activities/Interests Reading, music, sports, travelling, exploring technological research, development and new gadgets, gardening and attending IT conferences. Referees Personal Character Reference: Telephone: Professional Character Reference: Telephone: In accordance with the results of the self-administered self assessment tests I took, a number of conclusions regarding my professional behaviour and workplace likes and dislikes can be made. These shall be briefly outlined in the remainder of this section. Likes and Dislikes Likes Dislikes Project management Project work where I have to rely on others where critical event deadlines are concerned. Managing teams Low locus of control Detailing strategic plans for the attainment of department objectives Brainstorming Specific tasks whose objectives are clearly articulated Ambiguity Co-operative and harmonious collegial relationships with subordinates, colleagues and peers Conflict Overview Being both competitive and a high achiever, I have always invested my utmost effort in academic tasks and responsibilities. As a result, throughout most of my academic career, and further due to my belief in the practical value of theory and knowledge, I have done well. At the onset of my professional life, I would perform similarly well, if not better, consequent to my personal attributes and academic background. I, however, found myself confronting numerous challenges and conflict situations, primarily due to a personal feeling of overconfidence in my knowledge and capacities and a refusal to really listen to subordinates. Self-administered assessment tests indicated that my shortcomings, or points of weaknesses, facilitated the workplace behaviour outlined in the preceding. I was, to a large degree, controlling and even though I had good peoples' skills, I preferred to work alone or within groups over which I had control and leadership authority. None of this facilitated the development of the cooperative team and departmental relationships which I currently both enjoy and benefit from. Indeed, it was through a process of trial and error and the gradual implementation of my theoretical/academic knowledge to workplace situations and incidents which instigated my gradual development from an initially non-participative to an increasingly participative workplace colleague, employee and manager. Analysis I have always considered myself a high achiever and have never been satisfied with second place. At the same time, however, and ever since my earliest school days, the easy attainment of goals and objectives leaves me incredibly dissatisfied. This is because I both enjoy the competition and the sense of having achieved something because of hard work, not luck or because my competitor did not sufficiently challenge me. Given my competitive streak, my natural attraction towards challenges and my need for accomplishment, for feeling successful, upon the completion of my undergraduate studies, I decided that the path towards the realisation of my goals lay in the pursuit of an MBA. My decision to pursue graduate studies was predicated on my firm belief that theory and knowledge did not just compliment practice but facilitated best practice.' In other words, were I to realise my potential, I needed to supplement my drive with knowledge and frame my ambitions within a knowledge-based framework as would function as a blueprint for my professional and personal development. Shortly into my studies, I began to see the extent to which the knowledge I derived from formal studies contributed to my personal and professional development. Indeed, and as shall be illustrated in this section, my studies endowed me with the tools requisite for reflection upon my workplace behaviour, actions and activities for identification of both weaknesses and strengths. Incident One Following the completion of my BSc degree in computer science, I interviewed for ABC, one of the country's leading network security firms. As I had graduated with merit, I was accepted, not as a network administrator as I had initially hoped but as a salesperson. Within a period of four months, I had outstripped the sales records of the others in my department and was given the opportunity to serve as the team manager for the task group which was responsible for the onsite management of one of the company's smaller corporate accounts. The team's responsibility encompassed all of the installation of the network security systems the company had purchased and the training of the company's IT department in the management and operation of that system. As far as I was concerned, my responsibilities were clear-cut and I did not envision any problems. In my determination to prove that my selection as team leader, and not just a team member, was a wise choice, I went to the extreme, leading directly towards my first workplace conflict. This incident was incited by the fact that I designed a work plan for each team member, precisely articulating his/her duties without consulting the tram members themselves. I distributed the work and responsibilities sheets amongst them and expected that each go about their duties without question. Naturally, the team members did not react as I had envisioned and loudly protested what they referred to as my autocratic style of leadership. Added to that, they quite correctly pointed out that as I had no prior personal or professional knowledge of my team members, I was hardly in a position to determine who was suited to which set of tasks/responsibilities. Driven by ambition and a determination to prove my efficiency, I refused the reconsideration of my decisions. While the team successfully completely the project to which it was assigned, it was largely able to do so because the team members decided to ignore my suggestions and silently regrouped into a team which did not include me. They redistributed the project tasks amongst themselves and completed that which the team was supposed to do without my cooperation or input. My subsequent studies and readings directed me to the root causes of the above described incident. As Wheelen and Hunger (2005) explain, even though the manager/leader should have an innate capacity for decisiveness and need display authority, he/she must strategically select the moment when uncompromising authority will be deployed and, even then, should rarely come across as autocratic and authoritarian. Concurring, other researchers have similarly argued against the effectiveness of authoritarian management strategies, contending that it negates the potential for cooperation, compliance and, by association, the capacity to satisfy objectives (Johnson, 2001; Raelin, 2003; Northouse, 2004). The implication here is that the above described incident was incited by the injudicious use of authority I displayed and my subsequent failure to listen to those whose behaviour and activities I was supposed to manage towards the realisation of a specific goal. The results of the self-assessment tests further established something which I had suspected. Within the context of the above incident, I had acted out of character. The Learning Style Inventory, for example, indicated that I was a theorist; the driver-questionnaire results indicated that I primarily tended towards trying harder followed by a determination to please others. The reason why I highlighted these two test results is that in the incident described I acted, not as I wanted to or was naturally inclined to but as I thought I should. Indeed, I acted in accordance with my own stereotypical understanding regarding optimal leadership/managerial behaviour. The implication here is that my behaviour was a direct outcome of both my failure to act in accordance with either theory/knowledge or personal inclinations. Incident Two The second incident I confronted was following my promotion to network supervisor. The general manager called an impromptu meeting in which all departments were represented by their supervisors/heads. He announced that sales were down and that, insofar as network security solutions were concerned, our competitors had surpassed us, whether as regards quality of solutions or market share. The purpose of the meeting was for the various department heads to come together, pool their ideas and devise a strategy for the resolution of the stated problems. My linking skills test score indicted that I was strong in the areas of interface management, participative decision-making, problem solving and counselling. On the theoretical level, therefore, I should have emerged as an active and constructive participant in this meeting but I was not. The reason lies, as evidenced in my Tolerance for Ambiguity test scores, is that, at 85, I am extremely intolerant of ambiguity. That, compounded with the fact that my learning style inventory indicated that I was a theorist, implies that I like to think over matters prior to voicing my proposals for solutions/improvement of business processes. I tend towards the very systematic and indeed, as a network supervisor, this is precisely what the very nature of my job responsibilities demand. Consequently, even though others at the meeting were able to come up with spontaneous ideas and suggestions, I refrained from voicing my own thoughts. The reason, quite simply, lies in that, as evidenced by my cited self-assessment scores, I naturally inclined towards critical reflection upon ideas and their semi-complete development before publicly expressing/proposing them. The above stated could lend to the impression that I am not capable of decisiveness or decision-making and, hence, do not possess the qualities of a good manager. Numerous organisational development, management and leadership scholars have argued that the hallmark of the good manager, as in the manager who has the potential to constructively contribute to an organisation's development and increased productivity, is the decision-making capacity, including the ability to think and decide on the spot, in a crisis (Harrison, 2001; Collins, 2001; Farber, 2004; Quinn, 2004). There is, however, a fundamental difference between the capacity to make immediate strategic decisions in times of crisis and brainstorming over organisational strategy. As Harrison (2001) and Miller and Ireland (2005) explain, decision-making is the outcome of a well-thought out process, one in which various options and their possible outcomes are critically reflected upon and examined prior to the decision-maker's making a final choice between the various decision options. In those rare instances where a decision-maker has to be an instantaneous decision, it is customarily a decision which relates to his/her department and responsibilities, with the implication being that he/she relies on experiential and theoretical knowledge. In other words, the decision in question is not spontaneous bit instantaneous and founded upon both experience and knowledge (Harrison, 2001; Miller and Ireland, 2005). My capacity to make such decisions is borne out by my self-assessment test scores, especially those pertaining to my linking skills. Spontaneous brainstorming, however, is different, all the more so because within the context of the second described incident, I had no experiential knowledge to fall back upon, not to mention the question of ambiguity. Hence, the described incident evidences my inability to engage in group brainstorming over ambiguous issues but does not indicate an inability to engage in the primary and most important managerial responsibility - decision-making. Incident Three The third incident centres on a conflict with a department colleague. My company had recently installed an in-depth network defence information assurance system for one of our clients. The system is supposed to render the network in question impenetrable to unauthorised access and, hence, hacking. However, the department had received several complaints from the client regarding intrusions, with the implication being that the system had failed. My colleague was insistent that the security hole probably lay in a bug in the software while I maintained that it was probably a consequence of misuse. As I was certain that I was right (and was later proved to be), I refused to consider the possibility raised by my colleague or to allow him to investigate it, believing it to be a waste of departmental time ad resources. Irrespective of the fact that my diagnosis proved accurate, the fact is that I very insensitively asserted my opinion and essentially ignored all that which I had been taught about both participative and emotionally intelligent leadership. As Svensson (2005), Pike, Pike and Barnes (2005) and Sila (2007) argue, the aforementioned leadership types, both of which are embraced by the TQM leadership model, provide managers with the tools requisite for directing followers and subordinates towards a specific course of action without insensitively shooting down alternative suggestions and, in so doing, cooperativeness and individual initiative. Despite the fact that, within the context of the third incident, I pursued a poorly selected leadership approach, my actions and behaviour were consistent with the results of the self-administered assessment tests I took. As regards conflict management, the results indicated that even though I possess a strong inclination for compromise, they also indicate that I am highly competitive. This last has bearing upon the incident described for two reasons. Competitiveness means an unwillingness to accept failure; I was unwilling to accept the possibility that the source of the customer's complaints lay with our system, indicating failure. Competitiveness also implies an unwillingness to listen to the suggestions of others, especially if they are alternative solutions to the ones I've proposed and, importantly, a marked unwillingness for compromise. These tendencies, or traits came to the fore in the incident described, insofar as I was determined to establish that the mistake did not lie with my department, that my analysis of the source was correct and that my department could solve the problem in record time. Added to the above, the self-evaluation instruments further determined that I have a high locus of control. This means that I innately believe in my own ability to influence events and bring incidents under control through my actions. In insisting upon the investigation of my analysis of the source of the problem, I was also acting in such a way as would bring the situation under my control and which would allow me to resolve the identified problem. In so doing, I neglected the utilisation of such leadership and management models as which would have given my proposal priority without my appearing not to listen or to value the participation and efforts of my department employees. Personal Development Plan The three incidents analysed in the preceding have contextualised both my weaknesses and strengths. Primarily focusing on the former, I will now present the development plan which I designed. The aforementioned primarily focuses on improving, or development my monitoring, counselling, consulting and facilitating skills. Personal development Objectives Beneficial changes which will be induced by the attainment of these objectives Strategy for achieving objectives Progress review Listening I will be able to develop my skills as an emotionally intelligent leader and, hence, will be in a position to understand my subordinates, their needs and drivers better. Needless to say, the interrelationship between listening and understanding, implies that stronger bonds will be forged between me and my subordinates; department will be more motivated; frustration levels will significantly decrease. I will achieve the mentioned objective by reading material on listening and the appropriate body language as which communicates interest, appreciation of suggestions and understanding. Added to that, I will most definitely speak less, will not interrupt others while they are speaking, irrespective of my opinion and, importantly, understand and reflect upon that which I have listened to, on the assumption that it could be beneficial. Will check for conversations at the Adult to adult ego state and constantly evaluate understanding. Added to that, I will monitor my department's attitude towards me, in an effort to determine whether frustration levels are up or down, whether subordinates are willing to talk with me or not and shall also be asking for subordinates' opinion in intra-department meetings. Team building and participative leadership Team building and participative leadership compliment and fortify one another and both function to instigate higher motivation levels amongst employees insofar as it communicates an appreciation of individual employee worth, an acknowledgement of their value and their capacity to positively contribute to team/department goals and leadership decisions (Afuah, 2003; Stockdale and Crosby, 2003; Seymann and Rosenbaum, 2003; Schein, 2004). This necessitates my acquiring a better understanding of the four team building steps, participative leadership strategies and team management wheel cycles. The strategy for achieving the aforementioned primarily lies in reading and studying theoretical and empirical literature on both team building and participative leadership, with particular focus on strategies for the implementation of team building and participative leadership models. Through theoretical/academic study, I will consciously develop all of my facilitating, motivating, monitoring, mentoring and consulting skills. Further to that, I will make a determined effort to understand my subordinates and to obtain a sound understand of their individual strengths and weaknesses so that I may capitalise on their strengths and avoid assigning tasks which would bring their weaknesses to the fore. I will primarily review progress my observing my subordinates and department performance. If I have successfully realised the identified personal objective, it would positively impact on both subordinates' attitudes and on department performance. Added to that, I will actively seek the feedback of department employees. Delegation Delegation is completely in line with the participative and emotionally intelligent leadership models I hope to attain (Quinn, 1988; Pool, 2000; Alvesson, 2002). As a direct outcome of, and as a prerequisite to, effective delegation, department employees will acquire a better understanding of departmental objectives and responsibilities; will assume more immediate and personal responsibility for the realisation of department objectives. The implication here is that targets and objectives will be met; department employees will be more motivate; department employees will attain a better understanding of one another's responsibilities and functions and how they affect their own and hence, will bond better. Frustration levels will significantly decrease. Reliance will be on theoretical/academic study followed my practical implementation and evaluation of results and outcomes. I will also seek the advise of my immediate manager and shall model myself after an organisation leader who is well-known for his delegation skills. I will constantly check my understanding of, and implementation of, delegation. I will independently monitor the effects/outcomes of delegation and shall seek the feedback of subordinates. Will retest myself on delegation self-assessment. Bibliography Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding Organisational Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Afuah, A. (2003). Business models: A strategic management approach. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leapand others don't. New York: HarperBusiness Books. Farber, S. (2004). Radical leap: A personal lesson in extreme leadership. Chicago: Dearborn Trade. Grant, R. M. (2004). Contemporary strategy analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Harrison, E. F. (2001). The managerial decision making process (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Johnson, R.S. (2001) TQM Leadership for Quality Transformation. NY: ASQ Quality Press. Miller, C. C., & Ireland, R. D. (2005). Intuition in strategic decision making: Friend or foe in the fast-paced 21st century Academy of Management Executive, 19, 19-30. Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership Theory and Practice, (3rd ed). London: Sage Publications, Inc. Pike, J., Pike, R.J., and Barnes, R.J. (2005). TQM in Action: A Practical Approach to Continuous Improvement. New York: Springer. Pool, S. W. (2000). The Learning Organization: Motivating Employees Through Integrating TQM Philosophy in a Supportive organisational Culture. Leadership & Organisational Development Journal, 21 (8), 3 73-396. Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond Rational Management, Mastering the Paradoxes and Competing Demands of High Performance, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Quinn, R. E. (2004). Building the bridge as you walk on it: A guide for leading change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Raelin, J.A. (2003) Creating Leaderful Organisation: How to Bring Out Leadership in Everyone. London: Berrett-Koehler. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organisational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Seymann, M., & Rosenbaum, M. (2003). The governance game: What every board member & corporate director should know about what went wrong in corporate America & what new responsibilities they are faced with. Boston: Aspatore Books. Sila, I. (2007) Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens of organizational theories: An empirical study.' Journal of Operations Management, 1, 83-97. Stockdale, M.S. and Crosby, F.J. (2003) The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity. London: Blackwell. Svensson, G. (2005) Leadership performance in TQM: A contingency approach.' TQM Magazine, 17(3), 527-536. Wheelen, T. and Hunger, D. (2005) Strategic Management and Business Policy. London: Prentice-Hall. Read More