SELF

Yesterday at work I was discussing a new procedure with a supervisor and he said. “these are living, breathing checklists- they are not set in stone.”  Immediately, I thought to myself,  “Wow, I just read an article about leadership being a form of nature, not a machine- how interesting.”  I think this is a good start to talking about how I fell about leadership now because I really connected with the “LEADERSHIP IN LIVING ORGANIZATIONS” article. 

            At the beginning of the semester, I did think of leadership as a machine: a way to get from point A to point B.  However, recently, I’ve realizing that leadership is more of a growing process (as my group expressed in form of a flower for our leadership map).

            I think that I still value the same things in a leader: confidence, honesty and passion, but now I see the bigger picture and appreciate and understand other traits and values as a whole.  I see leadership as a more cohesive process.

            I have noticed a bit of change in my feelings in both trait and behavior theories.  I was very anti-trait theory before, but I now see it as a stepping stone to other theories.  I think that certain traits are necessary for a successful leader, but I don’t think traits alone make a great leader.  Additionally, I was very relationship oriented in the beginning and did not see the value in task related behaviors.  I have definitely altered my view on this.  I know see the value in setting a specific task- because otherwise how would something get completed in a timely manner?  I now see that a leader should be both task and relationship oriented to build trust with their team (I didn’t realize until now, but my new feelings on this are reflected in my “media” of choice).

            I feel that in my future I will utilize task oriented behaviors much more than I have in the past.  I do not think I will ever have a full grasp on how I will practice my leadership in the future because I think it will continue to change based on my position, situation, team and more!

THEORY

I think the midterm helped me learn a lot about the leadership theories as a whole.  Previously, I was able to read articles and have discussions about theories, but I was not able to actually see specific theories in action.  I think it is important to know that leadership is seen everywhere—places that you would never imagine! Leadership is seen in positive, uplifting situations and in negative, heartbreaking situations.  I think it is also very important to note that leadership theories are not “set in stone”, hence being called a “theory”.  Just because someone has created a theory, doesn’t mean other people will act exactly in the square of that theory.  A leader may use bits and pieces of different theories in their everyday roles. 

            Specifically, I think I saw a little bit of the trait-based theory in all the leaders I examined in Apollo 13.  Previous to this assignment, I did not think this way.  I sort of completely ruled out trait theories.  The movie helped me realize though, that most successful leaders have a ‘base’ of traits-- the rest of their leadership abilities sort of stem from these traits. 

            Also, throughout the course so far, I never really thought of the “skills and competencies” as a part of a successful leader.  Now that just seems silly.  A leader must have specific skills and competencies in their particular situation to be successful.  If not, how could they build a trusting relationship with their team?  Or why would their team respect them when they were assigned tasks?  I did not think of skills and competencies as a part of being a leader, but just part of being an individual.  I now see this differently.

            Previously, the path/goal theory was a little gray to me.  Seeing this theory in action in the movie helped me understand the mix between task and relationship that occurs.  As a result, I really appreciate this theory.  Although the task (arriving back to earth safely) was the most important goal, the team still was relationship oriented. 

            Overall, before the midterm I never really tried to apply leadership theories outside of the class room or work environment.  Thus, I only viewed leadership as a hospitality oriented or related concept.  The midterm expanded my knowledge to realize that leadership surrounds me everywhere!

MEDIA

We've studied a lot of leadership theories thus far.  I have found I agree and disagree with parts of each theories.  Also, I have found myself relating these theories to my everyday experiences.  One thing I have noticed is that deadlines must be set to accomplish anything.  A person can practice any theory they would like, however I believe if a deadline is not set to complete a task, build a relationship or reach a goal, it will be difficult to be successful.  That is why I chose this picture that represents one of Walt Disney's famous quotes.

Plus, I'm a big Disney fan =).

Apollo 13

Midterm

The Four Seasons As One

Transformation & Beauty As One.

MIRACLE: The Four I's

Idealized Influence, Inspirational, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration

Transforming Leadership Theory: James MacGregor Burns

         James MacGregor Burns was born in 1918.  He has been considered a writer, scholar and professor.  He received the Pulitzer Prize in 1971 for his biography on Franklin D. Roosevelt.  He also wrote “Leadership” in 1978, which is still referenced in leadership studies today.  For this reason, among others, he is referred to as the “Father of Leadership”.  The theory he introduced is transformational leadership.  It occurs when “leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level of moral and motivation,” and is a process in which  ”leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale and motivation".  It synthesizes all theories and assumes that leadership is morally good and introduces positive change to a situation.  It incorporates changes of leaders, followers and the situation.  His contributions to leadership theory have improved the relationship between leader and follower.  

MISMATCH: Learning from the Negatives

It was difficult for me to identify a clear match or mismatch as a follower as it relates to Blanchard’s situational theory, so I decided to discuss the leader perspective.  For the past year I have been the president of the Hospitality and Tourism Management Student Association and I have learned a lot about others and myself.  The theories we have explored have given me a means and guidelines to actually formulate solid (or not so solid) ideas about the experiences I’ve had throughout the past year as a leader.  Prior to beginning the course, the “stuff I learned” was just a bunch of stuff floating in my head with no real explanations.  That being said, I will use Blanchard’s model to discuss a mismatch that had negative affects in my very general leadership situation.

SITUATION:

         At one point or another all teams have their strong players and their weak players, right?  So, what leadership behavior should the coach use for each player (in regard to their readiness)? 

         My team had both strong and not so strong players.  For the strong players, I used somewhat of a selling behavior, high task and high relationship.  However, for the not as strong players, I used more of a participating behavior, high relationship and low task.  As a result, I would complete tasks that were supposed to be done by other team members and not holding them accountable for not completing these tasks.

         Overall, this created a mismatch because the stronger team players expected me to use the same leadership style on everyone and ultimately hold each team member accountable in the same way.  This had a negative effect because I lost some trust and motivation from my stronger team members.  Why should they work so hard to complete their tasks if they saw someone else would do their job?  So, I thought that completing tasks for others was helping the team get things accomplished, but I learned that it actually was breaking the team even more. 

What's Your Situation?

            The Contingency Model and Situational Leadership theory both examine the particular situation a leader and follower are in, but take very different perspectives. 

            Fred Fiedler’s Contingency Model was very important because it was the first leadership theory to introduce styles and behaviors into the discussion instead of traits and characteristics.  The model says that a leader’s effectiveness is based on situational contingency, or the result of interaction of leadership style and situational favorableness. 

            Fiedler developed the “least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale to measure and identify leadership style.  A person must describe the person they like to work with least and rate that person 1 to 8 on a certain criteria.  These numbers are averaged.  A high score suggests that the leader has a human relations orientation and low score a task orientation.  So, relating to hotels, a front desk manager may need to have a high score with great interpersonal skills, whereas the general cashier could have a lower score and be more task-oriented to completely timely reports, cash flow, etc. 

            Another component of the contingency theory is that there is no ideal leader meaning that a leader is effective if their orientation fits the situation.  This considers leader-member relations, task structure and position power. Fiedler also argues that experience can have either a positive or negative effect in a situation depending on the stress level of that situation. 

            One negative I see about that contingency theory is the assumption that everybody’s least preferred co-worker is about equally unpleasant.  I understand that the test is really not about that co-worker, but instead about the person’s motivations type that is taking the test; however, I’m not convince on how accurate this can actually be.  I really like the situational perspective, but I question the validity.  For example. I would consider myself a relationship oriented leader, but if I took this test I don’t think I would rate my least preferred co-worker in a “favorable light”.I prefer them least for a reason, so the assumption seems a little silly to me. 

            The Contingency Theory implies that a leader must be in the right position or situation to be effective.  The Situational Theory suggests that the leader should use different styles based on the situation.  Kenneth Blanchard and Paul Hersey created four situations and approaches:  telling, selling, participating and delegating. The following diagram summarizes each.

          The task behavior refers to the extent to which the leader spells out duties and responsibilities and the relationship behavior refers to the extent to which the leader engages in two-way communication.  It is important to note that the most effective style depends on the readiness of the group.  For example, a new front desk agent needs to create a new reservation.  The leader would probably need to be selling the process (high task and high relationship) because the new employee needs to know the specific and time sensitive steps to create the reservation, but must also feel like the leader is truly trying to help them.  In contrast, a leader may need to be in the delegating behavior for a seasoned front desk agent to show trust in the agent’s skills and abilities. 
            I find I like the situational leadership theory because it says that a leader can alter both their behavior and their situation, whereas the contingency theory implies only the situation can change.  During the past four years of working in the front office at a hotel I’ve found you cannot pick and choose what situation you would like to be in.  Therefore, I think a situational leadership theory fits operational hospitality leaders and managers versus the controller or director of finance having a more trait-based theory.


So.. what's your situation? 

Central Park (2009)

Our lives are not determined by what happens to us, but by how we react to what happens; not by what life brings to us, but by the attitude we bring to life.  A positive attitude causes a chain reaction of positive thoughts, events and outcomes. It is a catalyst, a spark that creates extraordinary results.  [unknown]