This was my first course in the MS in Leadership program at GSC, and I have to say that it was thought provoking, engaging, and essential in laying the groundwork for understanding leadership more deeply. Overall, I felt every module was suited towards the cultivation of our basic leadership capabilities.

I especially enjoyed the many theories and models we studied, particularly the differing leadership styles and the situational leadership explanations. Seeing definitions for differing styles of leadership really helped me better understand my qualities as a leader. Situational leadership was a concept I was vaguely familiar with, but after studying, I realize the importance of being particular in specific situations.

I enjoyed the back and forth of our peer interactions. It really helped to interact with the class. The posts and responses were very thought provoking as well!

I think the moodle was easy to navigate. Having the accordion style week by week assignments helped me keep on track! The out put of announcement by you, Dr. S, was also extremely helpful; I enjoyed the personal style of your announcements in helping us see the assignments in a different light.

Overall, thank you for a wonderful first experience in this program! And in my first class in four years!

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HxhatPAl-FYkCzhG5tQx5DLC1YHiepcC/view?usp=sharing

I was having trouble embedding the info-graphic here, so I utilized a google doc shareable link for you viewing pleasure!

After completing the SDU, the character I most aligned with was Aristotle. My moral purposes most aligned with virtue, followed by duty, with no alignment in utility (fitting, since I never cared for the Utilitarian writings of Mill). I do agree with the findings of the SDU. The strengths listed in Virtue (the moral purpose I most align with) included, “going far beyond compliance, giving 100%, and being a trustworthy person and have been in a leadership role” (SDU, Virtue description, 2019). I do believe these descriptors lend themselves to my experience in leadership thus far. A weakness that stood out to me in the Virtue description was “you may find it frustrating that everyone is not a moral perfectionist” (SDU, Virtue description, 2019). I will be the first to say that I am not a moral perfectionist, but I do try to weigh the best options in decisions, especially those affecting other people.

In the Duty description, the strengths were, “being a natural team player, devising rules and sticking to them, and being the definition of trustworthy and dependable” (SDU, Duty description, 2019). Again, these strengths do speak to by experience as a leader thus far. My wife will be the first to say that I am rules follower through and through. One weakness that was accurate was, “you may take it personally when others are not fair” (SDU, Duty description, 2019). I think this sentence makes me sound a bit childish but I agree with the premise that rules and guidelines are created for a reason, therefore it is understood that everyone should rightfully follow them to ensure equality. Now I am not naïve; I know that most people bend rules (as do I), but I think the idea of clarity and fairness is and essential one.

In the article titled “First Know Yourself Then Your Team” by Manfred Kets de Vries, the author dives into what he titles as the “Psychodynamic approach” (para. 5). Basically, the author explains that “we are all complex, unique and often paradoxical beings. Our everyday lives consist of webs of constantly shifting and irrational forces that underlie ‘rational behavior and choices” (para. 5). Knowing this parable to be mostly true, I tend to leverage my moral purposes of virtue and duty to combat these external and irrational forces. Being virtuous, as described by the SDU, allows to be a trustworthy person, one that others can come to when those irrational forces try to take shape. Duty allows me to seamlessly fit into the grooves of rules and guidelines in order to avoid the distractions of the irrational forces, while once again being a trustworthy and dependable person for others on my team.

References: Kets de Vries, Manfred (19 August, 2014). First Know Yourself Then Your Team, Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insead/2014/08/19/first-know-yourself-then-your-team/#7745c99f5144

In Hersey and Blanchard's model. situational leadership is fluid. It allows for the user to determine where and when they can apply the differing forms of situational leadership in order to be successful. It also lays heavily on the group maturation level. These two concepts go hand in glove; using a certain style in accordance with a certain maturity level.

In Brandon Gaille's "13 Situational Leadership Advantages and Disadvantages", he describes one disadvantage as "creating confusion within the company" (para. 16). In this disadvantage, Gaille states that "when direct reports see this change occur, it can leave them with questions" (para. 16). The change referenced would be in relation to the shifting styles; from delegating to telling. According to Gaille, it may creating an irreparable confusion that will plague the workplace and force ad nausem.

There is obvious tension between this objection and the model itself. For one, Hersey and Blanchard would argue that the maturity level dictates the use of certain styles. If the group is M1, or does not have the reuired skills nor the ability to take responsibility, then a telling style is warranted. (Hersey & Blanchard, para. 5). Instead of confusing the group, like Gaille argues, the leader can continually use this style if and when they interact with this M1 level group. (Gailee, para. 16)

Overall, I think that Hersey and Blanchard's model is strong. I continually utioize differing stiautional leadership techniques based on which group I am interacting with. As I stated in my hypothesis post describing situational leadership, it is truly up to the leader to figure out their group; maturity level, overall competency, and ability to self sustain. These inherit understandings will grant the leader the ability to choose which style is best suited.

References:

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1980, January 1). Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory. Retrieved from Leadership-Central.com: https://www.leadership-central.com/situational-leadership-theory.html

Gaille, B. (2018, December 10). 13 Situational Leadership Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved from Brandon Gaille: https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2013/06/25/the-best-and-worst-of-situational-leadership/

In A Leader’s Vision from our Pressbook, vision is defined as “a clear, distinctive, and specific view of the future, and is usually connected with strategic organizational advances” (para. 1). From that definition, one would be surprised to entertain the idea that an organization’s vision can be gender based. Examples of vision statements from organizations include, Kellogg, “To enrich and delight the world through foods and brands that matter”, or Marriott, “To be the #1 hospitality company in the world”. These vision statements offer a leap into the company’s self-determined future. But vision does not only involve the “tagline”, as leadership teams are tasked with implementing goals and plans to aim for that “tagline”. This distinction is important because, as described in our Pressbook, “leader’s decisions and strategies reflect their view of what an enterprise can be rather than what it currently is” (para. 2). I researched long and hard to find any examples of “sexist” visions, but to no avail. However, I think there is something to be said about the direction leadership takes; especially if that leadership is comprised of women.

In one of the articles read this week titled Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership, the author describes women in a double-bind due to their association with communal and agentic tendencies (Carli & Eagley, p. 66). They state, “Given this double-bind, it is hardly surprising that people are more resistant to women’s influence than to men’s” (p. 66, para. 3). This can speak directly to a leader’s application of vision. If the leadership is an all-male team, then the organization will fall in line and accept visionary ideals laid out. But, according to the statement quoted above, if the inverse were true, the all women leadership team may face some opposition to their visionary quest.

I do not believe that gender shapes vision, but I can believe that whomever is pushing that vision may elicit different reactions from the company as a whole based on their gender.

References:

Studies, G., & College, G. (2019). Cultivating Your Leadership Capabilities. Retrieved 13 August 2019 from https://via.hypothes.is/https://granite.pressbooks.pub/ld820/chapter/9/#annotations:kHP0yrtyEemlkvNgLYcxfg

Carli, Linda & Eagly, Alice (2007), Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership. Harvard Business Review.

I believe that the Full-Range Theory of Leadership resonates best with Raelin's construction of leaderful leadership. In Raelin's Creating Leaderful Organizations (2003), he describes, and we have examined thoroughly, that leaderful leadership can be grounded in four basic principles: collaboration, concurrency, collection, and compassion (p. 14). In the description of the Full-Range Theory in our pressbook (2019), these four principles can be connected to the four components of the theory (para. 8). Individualized consideration, as described in the pressbook, is when a leader "attends to the follower's concerns and needs and acts as a mentor or coach" (para. 8). I argue that this relates to the collaborative principle found in Raelin's text. Raelin mentions that within collaboration, "leaders realize that everyone counts; every opinion and contribution matter" (p. 16). A leader who attends to follower's concerns and needs is realizing how important their "collaboration" is with the team.

Additionally, in the description of intellectual stimulation, "[a] leader [will] challenge assumptions, take risks, and solicit followers' ideas" (para. 8). This can be directly linked to the collective principle in Raelin's Four C's. Raelin states that "leadership may thus emerge from multiple members of the community, especially when important needs arise, whether preparing for a strategic mission, creating meaning for the group or proposing a change in direction" (p. 15). Leaderful leaders know when and how to take stock in the ideas of the team. They can utilize their granted position of power to illicit these ideas by stimulating the brain trust.

It is important to note that while it may not be a direct comparison to Raelin's text, the stated idea that the Full-Range Theory directly relates and is a component of transformational leadership exasperates the overarching ideals of leaderful leadership. Transformational leadership is described as "leaders who work based on the balanced approach...they help their subordinates to solve some of the challenging issues at the same time they teach their subordinates about the ways of tackling problems in the similar context" (Malki & Juan, Leadership Styles and Job Performance, para. 16). Transofrmational leadership is about collaboration, collective input, compassion, and concurrency. The Full Range Theory utilizes these four c's in describing and forming the components of the theory; individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspriational motivation, and idealized influence (Pressbook, Chapter 7, para. 8).

References:

Cultivating Your Leadership Capabilities Pressbook. (2019). Chapter 7. Theories of effective Leadership including trait, contingency, behavioral, and full-range theories.

Raelin, Joseph, 2003. Creating Leaderful Organizations. San Francisco. Berrett - Koehler

The passage I have highlighted does illicit a negative bias when describing leaders and managers. I do believe that leaders are considered figureheads; the face of the project so to speak. But managers can be equally as effective, when working within certain teams, at garnering support and respect. As my colleague stated in his post, leaders are managers, but managers do not have to be leaders. According to Spencer in Management versus Leadership, "both terms suggest directing the activities of others" (para. 1). A leader and a manager strive to push the team towards success. I agree that leaders achieve this through, "emotional appeal, [building] relationships with followers, and seek[ing] to transform", while managers, "focus on the organization and performance of tasks" (Spencer, 2019, para. 1). Again, both a leader and manager need to focus on the task at hand.

In my experience, I have been a subordinate to a person who sometimes utilized leadership qualities, while other times utilizing managerial qualities. While working as a lobbyist, my boss would always use the mantra "the team comes first". This was him being a leader. He constantly tried to ascertain what we needed to do the job effectively. Now, all things considered, he was an effective leader. His managerial skills, however, seems to touch the line of authority and control. Instead of teaching or walking me through a problem, he would give me a project and allow me to either sink or swim. And when I sank (and I did sink) he would not show me where I faulted, but instead told me how my actions negatively affected the overall course of the project. He was most definitely focused on being a "result-oriented, problem- solver" (Spencer, 2019, para. 2) There are stark differences between leadership and management, but I do believe most people utilize both when applicable.

Reference:

Spencer, Aaron (2019). What is Leadership? para. 1-3.

I believe that Goleman's Model of Situational Leadership is the strongest among the three listed. In each model, there is a distinct focus on one of three things; situation, subordinates, or leaders. In Goleman's model, the focus lies with the subordinates, as their response and reactions dictate which of the six types listed should be utilized by the leader. For example, Goleman describes Coaching leadership as, "work[ing] best when employees are receptive to guidance and willing to hear about their weaknesses and where they need to improve" (Spencer, 2019, para. 10). Another example would be in the description for Pace-setting leadership, as Goleman describes, "This works with highly motivated and competent employees, but can lead to burnout due to high energy demands and stress levels" (Spencer, 2019, para. 10). In both examples, there is a direct effect stemming from the reaction of the subordinates. Again, I believe this model to be the strongest because it does involve the subordinates on a reflective and responsive level, leaving them with the focus and direct influence over which type of situational leadership style would be most effective. In contrast, Hersey and Blanchard's theory is very black and white. There is a "grouping" of subordinates into one of the four sections (M1, M2, M3, or M4), which does not leave much room for personal thought or emotion (Spencer, 2019, para. 6). In the Normative Decision theory, every decision made relies on the idea that the leader will reflect before deciding on the correct path. Whether to involve the team or not is all determinate on the leader's reflection (Spencer, 2019, para. 11). Reflecting upon why Goleman's theory may prove insufficient, I would call upon the innate mystery of the human psyche. Some might say that Goleman's model is too intricate, and is completely determinate on human emotion and reaction. While reading each of the six types of leaders, it is clear that at some point, each of these becomes ineffective. For example, Pacesetting leadership can be effective, "but can lead to burnout due to high energy demands and stress levels" (Spencer, 2019, para. 10). Another example comes from the authoritative leadership approach, where it can be effective, "but can be problematic if the team members are highly experienced and knowledgeable and might resent being dictated to" (Spencer 2019, para. 10). I can see why some might say this model is ineffective because of the obvious negative reactionary descriptions, but I disagree. I actually believe this objection holds no water because having Goleman explain the possibilities of dissent allows you as the leader to be prepared for them whilst using these types of leadership styles. Knowing how your subordinates can and will react to your utilizing any of these leadership styles gives you as a leader a leg up on preparedness. Again, any successful leader can utilize any form of situational leadership to their advantage, it just requires a certain level of recognition and understanding form the leader.

This idea struck me, especially with it being the final culminating thought in this chapter. In my experience - drawing from both my professional experience and my wife's - human skills (especially in higher level positions) are lacking in the bureaucratic structure. Interpersonal skills lack highly within the C-Level. In my experience, whilst working within the law firm, the "partners" or high level lawyers would rarely ever appeal to the human side of other lawyers and our government relations team. They were strictly "managers" who were focused on completing the task to the highest level. For the purposes of bureaucracy, conceptual skills are utilized more often, and are noticed more often, in high level management. The ideas come from the top, and it is up to the lower level employees to help guide those ideas to fruition.

In the Information Age, however, I feel like these three defined skills are more fluid, because there is easier access to communicate throughout the bureaucracy. For example, at Saint Anselm College, managers and subordinates constantly communicate via email or video chat during high level discussion, such as during our student affairs strategic planning meetings. We expect everyone to have conceptual skills, because working through a strategic plan is truly a team effort. We expect everyone to have technical skills in order to operate the video chat links, the many web pages and shared documents we all have to access, and the constant and instant need to respond to emails.

Therefore, I do not think this model holds true in the information age. Communication is much easier nowadays than it was before the information age. It is harder to avoid the ease of accessibility in communicating with the whole team. That is why it is so important to continually hone your interpersonal skills. I believe that if you cannot fully hone your interpersonal skills, then you will find a much harder time climbing the proverbial managerial ladder.

My leadership style is mainly Transformational Leadership. Throughout my experiences, I have always considered myself a facilitator; someone who strives to lead and inform simultaneously. In my current role, I directly advise our largest student lead organization, the Campus Activities Board. This organization is comprised of 30 plus general members, with an executive board comprised of 11 event coordinators and 2 leaders (Director and Assistant Director). My contact is mainly with the Director and Assistant Director, where I meet with them on a weekly basis in order to review upcoming events, plan for future events, and help them develop professionally as leaders. I have found that throughout my time in this role, I have always guided these leaders towards the most successful paths when planning school wide events. As with every institution, there is "inside baseball" and "office politics" at play, and being a student who is not privy to those factors can sometimes make it tougher to accomplish tasks. I am always as transparent and informative as I can be when it comes to leading my students. I take pride in helping these student navigate the ins-and-outs of school wide event planning and the issues that come along with it. I explain to my students that I am not there to "hold their hands" during their processes, but to rather guide and facilitate discussion so they can arrive at the solutions, and feel more comfortable making those decisions within their organization without consulting me on every detail. I put a lot of trust into the student leaders on campus. Therefore, if issues arise with planned events, I always trust that these leaders can find solutions.

In reviewing the differing types of leadership styles, I recognize that different situations may call for different styles. For example, I also advise and operate our club sport program on campus. Again, these club sports are all student led, so I do put a lot of stock in the trust I have for these leaders to follow the guidelines, facilitate all practices and games, and adhere to our overall policies surrounding play and rosters. Having said that, there have been a couple of instances where the leadership for the team has failed drastically in adhering to policy, controlling and maintaining an operating budget, and lacked the wherewithal to set up game play or practice accordingly. In these cases, I needed to utilize a more Directive or Authoritarian leadership approach. I needed to explicitly show these teams what the correct steps were in realigning their season, maintaining their budgets, and controlling there roster and team. There is nothing subtle about utilizing directive and authoritarian approaches, but in my example, it did yield results.

Overall, I consider myself friendly, approachable, and responsive. These characteristics help in facilitating large groups of student leaders. In order for them to feel comfortable being in that leadership role, they need someone that they know they can rely on to help them through the tougher issues, be there to talk through how to effectively converse with their peer subordinates, and support them in an overall manner in order to ensure success in their roles. There are some negative aspects to being a charismatic type of leader, especially when dealing with students. I have encountered some student leaders that felt threatened by my personality. I can be excitable, boisterous, and energetic when conversing with students. Sometimes, there are students who do not share those same characteristics, and that may stifle our relationship, or cause them more distress when thinking about their leadership role.