Theory of Interactive Leadership - Reflection Paper

[pic 1]

[pic 2][pic 3]

Reflection Paper – Theory of interactive Leadership

Problem set

“Be a better leader, have a richer life” (Steward D. Friedman)

Beyond doubts, leaders are the one who shape our personality and make us move. At the same time, they can be admired as well as accursed. But how can we change in getting a better leader, and especially what is the best way of leading?

From my background and experiences, I was sharpened of having a nominated leader who took responsibility of the efficiency of a group and had a great sphere of influence when taking a decision. By far, not every member was pleased with certain decisions but accepted them as it was for the purpose of the team. The common wisdom teaches us, that unsatisfied team member will respectively lead to a lower degree of performance and motivation, paralleled by a loss in efficiency. Especially in organizations which define themselves by teamwork, the appearance of unmotivated team members can have a significant repercussion. Mostly resulting in missing deadlines or delivering incomplete descriptions.

This reflection paper will analyze the impact of a centralized leadership role in an alleged equal team on the overall performance. By comparing this leadership role with the “theory of interactive leadership”, I want to analyze which is the best solution for myself; continuing the model with clear hierarchies and one nominated leader or relinquishing control to other team members, rely on them and reach a consensus decision making process with a “100% agreement”.

To find an outcome, I will assess personal changes I made throughout the past three months when working with my group at IE Business School. Further I want to analyze, how my results can be reflected in a working environment.

Problem Analysis

To understand the roots for the preferred leadership style, the most effective approach is to examine one’s personality.

When analyzing how the personality of a human is composed, we discussed in class that 20-50% reflect one’s own personality, however, the remaining percentages are coming from influences like family, local community, national culture or global shared ideals. (slide 13, session 3)

In his research “Developing intercultural awareness” (1981), Kohls provides a brief introduction to the five human problems and the three possible responses based on the value orientation model (VOM) of Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck (1961). One common concern, regarding social relations, analyzes the best form of social organizations. The three types of response, which are set to meet all cultural differences, range from hierarchical to collateral and individual leadership. (Appendix 1) Spending my entire childhood in Germany taught me that rules are strictly to follow as well as the importance of hierarchies in a personal and professional relationship. Next to my professional experiences, cultural background has for sure a great impact on my personality, still it might only partly explain why I consider a hierarchical leadership style as my preferred one. Hence to get a better understanding of myself I want to analyze my personality, based on the feedback we received in class from different assessments. (Appendix 2) In particular two assessments proved my expectations: the MBTI assessment and the feedback on strengths. Firstly, I received my highest scores for thinking and judging, explaining my favor for having a clear plan when approaching a task and and work through it with a pre-set guideline. Similarly, I understand the received feedback from my group regarding my strength for organizing work and allocating responsibilities.

However, there were as well two assessments that made me think about whether Kohls’ centralized approach for leadership was the best approach. Analyzing my Belbin role in the team, I realized that I could not meet my expectations of being a “coordinator”, rather I found myself in the position of being an “implementer”, missing my aim to successfully allocate our tasks. Further thoughts came up, when seeing my attributed weaknesses were being tenacious and anxious.

Based on the results I asked myself, was my applied leadership style the appropriate one or is there a better solution?

Evaluation of Alternative Responses

To benefit from this feedback, I have to evaluate both:

1. continue applying a centralized approach of leading my workgroup or
2. trying out an interactive leadership style, by relinquishing control and responsibility towards other team members.

These two alternatives will be supported by the two very controversy coaching styles of Bobby Knight and and Coach K which we discussed in class. Further I will analyze the cost of switching to another style by approaching David Rooke and William R. Torbert theory about “Seven Transformations of Leadership”.

In a nutshell, Coach K and Bobby Knight show two very different styles of leadership, however they can be seen equally successful. Whereas Coach K is placing high values towards a deep relationship with his players, Bobby Knight is approaching his peers by giving them clear rules which they have to follow. Further he is a coach who wants to be completely respected by his peers and tends to exert his anger on the curt. Comparing it with Kohls’ three different responses of how to successfully lead an organization, one can analyze that Bobby Knight follows a centralized leadership approach, whereas Coach K is working more collaborative with his players, even by including them into a decision making process. (Appendix 1) (Snook at al.)

Besides the temper of Bobby Knight, I can indetify many similarities between Bobby Knight and myself, especially when leading a group. When effectively used, researches show that a centralized leader can have a positive influence on the motivation of his peers and that he can faster organize a group to get tasks done. Based on the research, especially in fast-paced and time-critical environments this theory can lead to an essential improvement on the result. The negative downsides will be a great dependence of the leader as well as innovation can be reduced over the time. (Fraher, p. 60) Further I see the risk of demotivation, once some group members are unsatisfied with the leader’s work.

Next to staying with this style of leadership, I grasp the possibility of switching my style, approaching a more interactive and collaborative style. By interactive leadership I understand the existence of a nominated leader, who by time hands over the responsibility to another team member. This appears for instance, when another team member can better approach an issue or possess a greater knowledge. Comparing it with Kohl’s responses this would refer to a collateral leadership, meaning that every member is equally likely to make a decision. (Appendix 1)