When thinking about
leadership, Theodore Roosevelt always comes to mind. He’s the only one to win both the
Nobel Prize and the Medal of Honor. Roosevelt believed that leadership is an ongoing project of self-creation
(Strock, 2015). Roosevelt stated, “If I have anything at all resembling genius,
it is in the gift for leadership…. To tell the truth, I like to believe that,
by what I have accomplished without great gifts, I may be a source of
encouragement to Americans” (Strock, 2015). President Roosevelt was an
inspirational leader and a master manager. Becoming a Naval Officer has taught
me about Honor, Courage and Commitment. In my career, I strived for excellence,
knowledge and leadership growth. I’ve been lucky enough to have mentors and
coaches in my life that invested their time to teach the many lessons in
leadership.
The classes
that I have taken toward the master’s degree in Leadership at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University have been instrumental in my leadership development
process. Recently, I’ve researched the difference between leadership
and management. There is a distinct difference between leadership and
management; however, each without the other is unsustainable (Obolensky, 2014).
Obolensky (2014) points out that leadership is about developing people and
ensuring goals are achieve; where management is the act or process of
deciding how to utilize people to achieve the goals. Using the right strategy
for the right situation is important in leading high performance teams.
Obolensky (2014) provided an assessment that delivers a glimpse into the
strategies one uses when faced with certain leader-follower
situations. This assessment is located in Chapter 10 of Complex
Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (Obolensky, 2014). The results can be use with the
Hersey and Blanchard (1988) model to see how to adapt leadership style to
follower development style. There are four leadership styles (S1 to S4) that
match the development levels (D1 to D4) of the followers (Blanchard, Zigarmi
& Zigarmi, 1988). The four styles suggest that leaders should put greater
or less focus on the task in question and/or the relationship between the
leader and the follower, depending on the development level of the follower.
After completing this test, I was able to see
which strategies I utilized and didn’t utilize in leader-follower
situations. Obolensky (2014) stated, “leadership strategies fall into four
categories. These categories are telling, selling, involving, and
devolving” (pp. 170-173). Strategy 1 (S1): Tell (Low People, High Goal) is
as simple as showing someone how to do something. Strategy 2 (S2): Sell (High
People, High Goal) is where the benefits of a certain proposal is laid out in
order to achieve buy-in. Strategy 3 (S3): Involve (High People, Low Goal) is used
when a leader wants to hold back to see if the follower can discover the
solution. Strategy 4 (S4): Devolve (Low People, Low Goal) is where the leader
is hands off and practicing in a wu wei state of inaction (Obolensky, 2014). I
scored a 5 in Tell (S1), a 4 in Sell (S2), a 4 in Involve (S3), and a 3 in
Devolve (S4). Taken together
S1 and S2 are typical strategies when the leader knows the solution and either
needs or chooses to ‘Tell’ it or ‘Sell’ it.
Obolensky (2014) describes that considered as pairs, the approach of S1 and S2 is more Yang than Yin – it assumes a male type leadership ‘pushing’ solutions. Meanwhile, S3 and S4 assume a more Yin type approach, more female and ‘pull’
(Obolensky, 2014). Obolensky (2010) states, “if the sum of S1 and S3 is greater than the sum of S2 and S4 then you may be taking too direct an approach”. In my case this is a true statement; there has been many times where I have done the work of others because I felt I could do a faster and better job. I realized this was neither good for the team or for me. I’m continuing to learn how to find a balance between being direct and still empowering others.
Obolensky (2014) describes that considered as pairs, the approach of S1 and S2 is more Yang than Yin – it assumes a male type leadership ‘pushing’ solutions. Meanwhile, S3 and S4 assume a more Yin type approach, more female and ‘pull’
(Obolensky, 2014). Obolensky (2010) states, “if the sum of S1 and S3 is greater than the sum of S2 and S4 then you may be taking too direct an approach”. In my case this is a true statement; there has been many times where I have done the work of others because I felt I could do a faster and better job. I realized this was neither good for the team or for me. I’m continuing to learn how to find a balance between being direct and still empowering others.
Looking back on the last 6 weeks, I have
learned the many ways a leader can implement change and adapt to the demands
for change. I’m extremely confident that this course has taught me valuable
lessons. I’m already seeing positive results of some of the changes I’ve
already made in my department. I highly encourage everyone to see a Ted Talks
video by Bob Davis on management and leadership. This video in my views summarizes some of the
things I’ve learned in these couple of weeks.
Reference:
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi,
D. (1988). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness
through situational leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Obolensky, Nick (2014-11-28). Complex
Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty ( p. 153). Ashgate
Publishing Ltd.
Strock,
J. (2015, October 26). 10 Theodore Roosevelt Leadership Lessons. Retrieved
February 28, 2016, from
http://servetolead.org/10-theodore-roosevelt-leadership-lessons/
No comments:
Post a Comment