Leadership Skills Are Best Acquired through Practice - Case Study Example

Leadership and Change: Reflection Paper Name Institution Course Instructor Date Leadership and Change: Reflection Paper There has been a persistent mystery about what leaders ought to do to achieve best results for a long time. In the past decades, leadership experts have embarked on training and couching leaders in various fields and levels in an effort to make business people who are cable of turning business objectives into reality- be they financial, strategic, tactical or organizational. Separating theory form practice effectiveness in leadership has eluded most people and organizations. Apparently, no empirical research has proved which patterns and leadership behaviors guarantee achievement. The meetings were definitely intended to train us to understand the different styles and understand how to employ them in unique contexts. This paper reflects of the three different meetings highlighting the occurrences and the influences it had on different individuals. Leadership experts give advice basing on experience, inference and instinct. In some cases, the advice may be relevant and helpful while in some cases it may not (Block, 2003, P.4). Leaders in training thereby are supposed to be exposed tomore practical situations in different contexts. Apparently, there are six different leadership styles each emerging from different emotional perspectives and demonstrated by different executives across the world (Bonnici, 2011, P.48). Taken individually, these styles have unique and direct impact on the working environment and atmosphere of a group, company or team. Additionally, leaders who achieve best results do not rely on entirely on style but execute different styles as required by the situation and context (Iqbal, T. 2011, P.124). Before reflecting on the three meetings to understand how the styles were employed and or missed by different group leaders in the different sessions it is important to understand. A mere description the style is most likely to appeal to anyone who leads or has been led using it (Glanz, 2002.). Firstly, there are coercive leaders who in most cases demand compliance immediately. This style functions when the juniors are compelled by the fear of punishment o comply. The second type of a leader is an authoritative leader who understands the goals and thereby mobilizes people towards a vision. Affinitive leaders on the other hand create establish emotional bonds and create harmony among the workers. This type of leadership style is apparently the favorite particularly to the juniors as they feel motivated rather than coerced towards achieving the set goals. Another style of leadership is democracy. This allows for participation and building consensus (Schiffer, &Shorr, 2009, P.68). Though this style is also favored by most organizations, it is less effective in situations that require urgent meeting. Leaders thereby have to take it upon there discretion to judge and understand when and when not to employ this style least it backfires. There is another type of leadership where leaders expect competence and excellence through self-direction. This is referred to us pacesetting leadership. The leader works along members in the initial stages to provide necessary directions and expect them to continue with the same pace until they achieve the set goals (Lomenick, 2013, P.114). In one way or another, the leaders in the group employed one leadership style and this reflection paper is aimed at giving an analysis of how the different styles affected performance in different contexts. Additionally, it describes the analysis of the achievements and mistakes done and how they affect the end results. This includes applying wrong leadership styles in wrong contexts and failing to switch from one style to another. Additionally, it describes the different lessons learnt to shape our leadership traits and the changes that have been experienced from the first to the third meeting. The first meeting had little challenges as most of the group members were not used to the group and one another. Our group was composed of six people and Arthur was appointed the leader in the first group. All the members of the group came early as agreed though John came late and gave an excuse for doing so. The initial agreement was that every body arrives 15 minutes before the commencement of the meeting and thereby everyone waited for the chairman’s reaction. The chairman in turn opted to be more democratic and threw the issue back to the members and waited. Apparently, the chairman wanted to listen to the views of the members before making the final decisions. As expected, members differed in there views as others favored his dismissal from the group while others bought his excuse and wanted him to be allowed to attend the meeting. As much as the leader would have wanted everyone to be comfortable, it was evident that this could not be unanimously achieved as it is with common democracy (Bahmueller, Johnston, & Quigley, 2007). Consequently, he had to take a decision to avoid wasting time as everyone was getting impatient. Arthur allowed him in explaining that it was only the first time for the members to meet and the meeting was so crucial for any one to miss. Consequently it would have been so unfair to suspend any group member. Most of the group members had finally agreed with it. I personally thought it was a very bold and wise decision to make. According to the agenda of the meting, the group had three points to discuss. The next step was to distribute tasks among different group members. A secretary had to be chosen and again the chairman threw the task to the members to decide the approach to choose in choosing the secretary. Before we started debating, Peter, .one of the group members authoritatively raised his voice and said the chairman should appoint the secretary as it would take time if the issue was to be debated. The questions were distributed by the chairman and the discussion went on as the chair allowed the majority to carry the day on every issue. At some point I felt there was a lot of time wasting as the chair took so long to make a decision. Generally, our group achieved the set objectives and we wrote down all the discussed points and the minutes. However, I felt that the chair had a great tendency of trying to please everyone proved to be impossible. Though Arthur generally did poorly with his democratic approach and was not flexible enough to shift leadership styles when situations called for them, he did well with emotional intelligence. There is a great link between emotional intelligence and success in leadership. According to Goleman (2000), different leadership styles match with different styles and social skill and self-control are vital elements in the success of any leader. Some of the group members were not so gentle to him when they felt he was taking so long to make a decision. However, he always reacted with a calm response and wanted all of us to feel he was in control. This was merely the first meeting and group members did not quite understand one another. This may have been the element behind Arthur’s choice of a democratic approach. At the end of the meeting we had all had an interactive discussion and we were more familiar with one another. There was more cooperation in the group in the following meetings and a group culture was slowly developing. Working in a group requires a different perceptual approach by which to understand everything happening (Franz, 2012). As a leader one has to understand the personalities and be aware of different interactions among the group members. This is aimed at ensuring that all the potential and collective energy is utilized in achieving the objectives f the group. This implies that group leaders have to ensure that the actions of each group members fit in the larger context of the group and his world (Anthony, 2012). There was more understanding among members during the second meeting and no one came late. In this meeting John was the leader and the secretary was maintained. There was more cooperation in the group and the chair always wanted everything done in time. Apparently, he had a good understanding of what was to be discussed and thereby was in a position to give necessary directions. Leaders with great knowledge around their field of service tend to be very successful and command more respect (Fullan, 2011, P.47).Being too strict with time however was perceived differently with members as we had different abilities. According to the theories of group dynamics group leaders should learn to avoid linear thinking and do it recursively (Azuonwu, 2002, P. 12). Most theories and models on groups and team work are drawn from research on behavior, social theory and interpersonal theory and focus on interpersonal interaction. The interpersonal focus is quite necessary as it bases on both exchange from the past and the present. In both this examples, behavior is viewed as being linear in nature whereby one action affects the next one (Azuonwu, G. 2002). The chairs strictness with regard to time thereby allowed members less time to express themselves which raised negative reactions. At some point, some of the group members declined to make their contributions with the fear that they may be shut down before. As much as such incidences threatened the cooperation among members, they played a big role in in building our leadership qualities as we learned from different reactions among members what ought to be done in every situation. They assisted in expanding our group vision and allowed as to have the feel of how it evolves with time. The little disagreements that occurred both between the leader and the group members themselves brought attention to interpersonal patterns and communication patterns that emerged. The second meeting thereby dwelled on both the agenda at hand and revisiting the leadership guidelines in the previous session with each trying to ensure they got it right. The group objectives were achieved within time as compared to the previous meeting. However, due to the few disagreements in the group, I felt the chair should have encouraged more emotional maturity and cooperation among the members. In every event and situation that occurred in the first and second meeting, the emerging issue was the importance of communication in leadership. This is often a principle taught theoretically but means more when it comes to real situations. It is very essential that a group leader understands how to communicate with every member of the group (Anthony, 2012). Apparently, each group requires different communication styles as evidenced by the discussions with members from other groups. Different groupspreferred different communication styles and they had reasons for their choices. This apparently emerged as an element of group culture. A successful leader thereby adjusts his communication style depending on the audience which necessitates a good understanding of the people being lead (Hargie, Dickson, &Tourish, 1999, P.66). This could be the reason why the third meeting had more success in terms of cooperation and interaction as Mike, the chairman had had time to understand the group members. Leaders ought to understand the interests and characteristics of the audience and adjust to them and take approaches that will encourage them to achieve the goals of team (Marquis, & Huston, 2009, p.74). With a good understanding of each group member, Mike shifted between affiliative and authoritative leadership in an effort to achieve the set goals. He advised members to pair up with partners they are comfortable with and distributed the tasks. He then let the pairs explain their points as other members listened and asked questions. Consequently, there were fewerinterruptions and more cooperation and objectives were achieved with much ease. This success could be attributed to Mikes own strong personality and fact that we had seen different situations in the past meetings and everyone had tried to understand how to handle them basing on the theories we had learned. From the three meetings and the development of events, it can be deduced that leadership skills are best acquired through practice. Theories may be difficult to apply in real contexts depending on and individual’s personality. Additionally and more in my opinion, and efficient leadership style depends with the context and the arising situation. Consequently, a successful leader should be flexible enough switch from one leadership style to the other depending on the context. References Anthony, L. 2012. Effective Communication & Leadership.Small businesses.Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/effective-communication-leadership-5090.html Marquis, B. L., & Huston, C. J. 2009. Leadership roles and management functions in nursing: theory and application. Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Hargie, O., Dickson, D., &Tourish, D. 1999.Communication in management.Aldershot, Hampshire, England, Gower. Franz, T. M. 2012. Group dynamics and team interventions: understanding and improving team performance. Malden, MA, Blackwell Pub. Azuonwu, G. 2002. Understanding group dynamics: effective tool for conflict resolution and management in Nigeria. Ibadan [Nigeria], Evi-Coleman Publications. Dimock, H. G., Devine, I., &Dimock, H. G. (1997). Assessing group dynamics.North York, Ont, Captus Press. Glanz, J. 2002. Finding your leadership style: a guide for educators. Alexandria, Va, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Bonnici, C. A. 2011. Creating a successful leadership style: principles of personal strategic planning. Lanham, Rowman& Littlefield Education. Iqbal, T. 2011. The impact of leadership styles on organizational effectiveness: Analytical study of selected organizations in IT sector in Karachi. Munich, Grin Verlag. Block, L. 2003. The Leadership-Culture Connection: An Expository Investigation. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26, 4. Bahmueller, C. F., Johnston, M., & Quigley, C. N. 2007. Elements of democracy: the fundamental principles, concepts, social foundations, and processes of democracy. Calabasas, Calif, Center for Civic Education. Lomenick, B. 2013. The catalyst leader: 8 essentials for becoming a change maker. Goleman, D. 2000.Leadership that gets results. Harvard business review. Fullan, M. 2011. Change leader: learning to do what matters most. San Francisco, Calif, Jossey- Bass. Schiffer, M., &Shorr, D. (2009). Powers and principles: international leadership in a shrinking world. Lanham, MD, Lexington Books. Read More