A Pages:8 Words:2063
This is just a sample.
To get a unique essay
Hire Writer
Type of paper: Essay
University/College: University of Chicago
Subject: ,
Download: .pdf, .docx, .epub, .txt

A limited time offer!

Get custom essay sample written according to your requirements

Urgent 3h delivery guaranteed

Order Now

Learning Team Analysis

Learning Team C, in the Leadership Theories and Practice course, consists of five members. Each member possesses their own learning style. These learning styles translate into specific leadership behaviors and practices.

We will write a custom essay sample on Learning Team Analysis specifically for you
for only $13.90/page
Order Now

The differing leadership styles of the team members reflect established leadership theories studied in the course. Team members participated in the Pearson/Prentice-Hall Self-Assessment Library Website (University of Phoenix, 2011) leadership assessments that rate the members’ use of power, team skills, and conflict handling styles.

The information gleaned will assist team members in understanding the potential impact of the differing leadership styles on team effectiveness. Beth’s Analysis Team member, Beth Calvano, scored a 107 on the How Good am I at Building and Leading Teams. This is a high score and shows that Beth will be a strong team member. For the What’s my Leadership Style assessment Beth scored an 8 on the concern for people section and a 17 on the task section.

The scores are high and reflect a positive concern for teammates and a task oriented teammate. On the What’s my preferred Conflict-Handling Style quiz, Beth’s highest scores were in collaborating (19), accommodating (19), and compromise (19). The What’s my Preferred Form of Power assessment shows that Beth prefers the expert and referent forms of power. Beth’s leadership style reflects the Theory Y portion of the Theory X and Y theory of leadership.

Her high scores on the learning team building assessment, in the concern for people and task sections, shows her ability to care for others and still accomplish the task. Beth’s conflict-handling style shows high scores for collaborating, accommodating, and compromise, three very significant factors for effective teamwork. The fact that her preferred forms of power are expert and referent lends itself to that theory of leadership. She tends to be an expert in her field, but will ask questions and educate herself on subjects with which she is not familiar.

Her preference for referent power ensures her strong interpersonal connections with teammates (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1995). Because of the contemporary use of knowledge-based learning in organizations, Theory Y is an effective leadership style (Kopelman, Prottas, & Falk, 2010). Beth’s leadership style should impact the team positively. Mark’s Analysis Mark’s score of 79 on the assessment of “How Good Am I at Building and leading Teams” places him in the second quartile for potential leaders.

Although a higher score was anticipated, responses to key questions pertaining to his leadership style indicated he would rank somewhere in the mid to upper segment of candidates that would build and lead the team. Mark’s leadership style was assessed to be in the upper ranges with respect to concern for people and task achievement. This indicated an ability to balance his orientation for task/people. This leadership style is said to be engendering to others and is reflective of an individual who accepts challenges and focuses on achieving tasks. Overall Mark should have a positive effect on the team.

He may not be the designated leader initially, however he has skills sets which are supportive and if needed could evolve into a leadership role which would assure the team of continuous quality in structure, production and an atmosphere of motivation, collaboration and mutual respect and accountability. Sharra’s Analysis Team member, Sharra Jones, scored an 85 on the How Good am I at Building and Leading Teams. This score places Sharra in the second quartile which means she can be a strong team member. For the What’s my Leadership Style assessment Sharra scored an 8 on the concern for people section and a 9 on the task section.

The scores are in the middle range, which means that the concern for people score is on the higher end and the score for task oriented is on the low- high end. Sharra has great concern for people, but she can also be focus on the task that is set before the team. On the What’s my preferred Conflict-Handling Style quiz, Sharra’s highest scores were in collaborating (16) and compromise (16). The What’s my Preferred Form of Power assessment shows that Sharra prefers the expert, legitimate, and referent forms of power. Based on the results from each assessment, Sharra’s leadership style falls under contingency theories. Contingency pproach is that the leadership style is based on the situation the leader is in (Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). Sharra’s scores high score in the concern for people helps her to adapt to people needs which is similar to adapting leadership styles to fit the situations. The ability to collaborate and compromise makes Sharra an effective team player. She is willing to do what it takes to make sure the team task is completed. Her preferred forms of power also show that she will have a strong and effective impact on the team, because she would be consider an expert in her field and is willing to share and help other to achieve what she has achieved.

Ryan’s Analysis Leadership is a facet of my professional life that has always been a challenge to me. Until I entered into my present position, I rarely thought about leadership in anything greater that a Transactional level (Burns, 1990). Being in education, when I was working with student in the classroom, or athletes on the field, I see that while I was being more Transformational, there was still a Transactional underpinning to the entire relationship. Stepping in the a leadership position within the Curriculum and Instruction Department in the school district I work in brought an entirely new perspective on leadership.

Honestly, I wish that I had taken this class and these assessments before undertaking this role. According to the questionnaires, I scored a 102 in the “How Good Am I at Building and Leading a Team? ” This places me within the top quartile. What strikes me as interesting is that once I received the results of this survey, it made the results from the next screening more understandable. The “What’s My Leadership Style? ” assessment showed an almost even distribution between my concern for people and my concern for the task. My scores were 11 and 12 respectively.

According to the analysis, this places me in the category of leadership that is most versatile in any profession. From there, the “What’s My Preferred Type of Power? ” survey came back with some interesting measures. Within five-tenths of a score, I had three power types tied for the highest. The first was “Legitimate” with a score of a 5. Next were “Expert” and “Referent” respectively with scores of 4. 7 and 4. 5. The screening was completed with the “What is my Preferred Conflict-Handling Style? ” This measure returned with similar outcomes to the previous measure. According to the results, three styles came in close to each other.

These were “Collaborating” with an 18, “Compromising” with a 17, and “Accommodating” with a 15. Oddly enough, this left me with more questions than answers from when I started. As much as I strive to be a Transformational Leader in practice, I would look at these quantitative results as moving somewhere in between Transactional and Transformational (Burns, 1978). However, these two categories are fairly generous in their latitude and approach to delineating leadership styles. Manz and Sims (1991) offer a little more depth in description of leadership styles with their four categories, or styles, of leaders.

As with the Transactive/Transformative dyad, I found myself striving to be the SuperLeader these two researchers describe. However, and honest assessment of qualitative, anecdotal experiences combined with the quantitative data listed in the previous paragraph would more than likely place my style on the border between Transactor and Visionary Hero. Perhaps the borders between these six different leadership types discussed bear more scrutiny once the types, themselves, have been clearly established. Like practitioners of the hard sciences, it is the borders between things where activity is at its greatest.

This is where geologists and ecologists thrive. Physicists yearn for the borderlands of the known and the theoretical to see what is truly there. For leadership, both general and individual understanding, the borders between styles is where more concentration, at least for me, is needed. This is where I see my leadership style flourishing and thriving. Here is where I can authentically cultivate and unique style to leadership with different individuals, and with various groups. However, the one issue I must maintain a situational awareness of is Situational Leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1995).

In order to maintain a transformative stance, authenticity is a premium that cannot be sacrificed. As such, I must negotiate the situation within the acceptable limits I have put in place within myself. This awareness can only come through experience and engaged reflection after the fact. Phyllis’ Analysis This is a group that consists of five (5) team members, which will reflect five (5) different personalities and five different backgrounds. Each team member posses his or her own particular leadership style, which reflects in their assessments. I began to reflect back on my shift in roles.

As I think back on my transition from a follower, to a supervisor, and to my current position as a manager, I realized those were very difficult periods for me. I knew that as time progressed I would have learn how to change the way I viewed things as well as how I reacted to certain situations. According to Avolio, Yammarino (2008), “Leadership involves the ability “to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (pg 318). I completed the assessments and the majority of what the assessment revealed had a lot of relevancy.

The first assessment I completed was, How Good am I at Building and Leading Teams. I scored 100. According to the score I received reflected I was a strong team member. The next assessment I completed was What’s my Leadership Style. I scored an eight (8) on the concern for people, which was a high score according to the assessment and I scored a thirteen (13) on the concern for task, which was also high. According to the assessment the scores in these two particular categories relayed balance, indicating that on a weighted scale I would equaled out.

Next, I completed What’s my preferred Conflict-Handling Style. This assessment reflects more of the leadership traits I utilize. The two areas I scored the highest was collaborating and compromising receiving a score of sixteen (16) in both areas. I received a score of fourteen (14) on accommodating. In the areas of competing and avoiding, I received the same score of eleven. The last assessment I completed was What’s my preferred Type of Power. The scores I received are: Reward 3. 7; Coercive 2- I found to be the most accurate; Legitimate 4. 2; Expert 5; Referent 3. 2.

After completing the assessments, the leadership theory I display would be more of transformational. Subordinates need to feel valued and given a broader look into their job. To praise them in public motivates and builds their confidence. Wren (1995) stated, “There has to be structure in leadership. The leader needs to be to explain the task to the subordinately letting them know exactly what it is they would have them to do. Subordinates will be inclined to do as they have been instructed by the leader (“that is good follower acceptance and loyalty”) (pgs. 96-97).

References
Burns, J. (1978). Transactional and transformational leadership. In J. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s companion: insights on leadership through the ages (pp.100-101). New York: Free Press. Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987) New approaches to effective leadership. New York:

John Wiley.
Hersey ,P. & Blanchard, K. (1995). Situational leadership. . In J. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s companion: insights on leadership through the ages (pp.207-211). New York: Free Press. Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., & Curphy, G. (1995). Power, influence, and influence tactics. In J. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s companion: Insights in leadership through the ages (pp. 339- 351). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Kopelman, R., Prottas, D., & Falk, D. (2010). Construct validation of theory X/Y behavior scale.

Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 31(2), 120-135. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

Manz, C. & Sims, Jr., H. (1991). SuperLeadership: beyond the myth of heroic leadership. . In J. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s companion: insights on leadership through the ages (pp.212- 221). New York: Free Press.

University of Phoenix. (2011). Pearson/Prentice-Hall self-assessment library web site. Retrieved from http://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/SAS/ROBBINS sal3v/sal3v3web.html

Supernatural | Western Digital WD Red 2TB 3TB 4TB 6TB 8TB 10TB SATA Internal NAS Hard Drive HDD | Misterio