BHO 0149 Leadership; Process and

Organisations
Individual Assignment TERM 2 (12/13)

(GLP) Record and Reflective
Statement




U1061861
Rachel Barber

1.0 Introduction
This paper is the write-up of the notes and reflections made by myself upon the continuous
Group Leadership Projects (GLPs) throughout the course of the academic year. The reflections
will draw upon Stogdill (1948) to describe traits each leader possessed, will assess leadership
styles in coherence with leader-follower relationships and use elements of Katz (1995, pg. 34)
and Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding et. al (2000) Skills approach and Skills based model of
leadership (Fig. 1). The writer of this paper has a strong leaning to the situational approach to
leadership, as she believes different situations definitely require different approaches to
leading, therefore will incorporate the SL11 model (Shown in Fig. LAST) in relation to each
reflection. The actual reflecting process will follow the model of Kolbs Learning Cycle 1984
(Shown in Fig.8) in terms of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualising
and active experimentation (Stice, 1987)


















2.0 Activities
2.1 Activity 1 (Week 5-7) Women and Business Leadership: Holly
The first task was about women in leadership; a topic which I am quite drawn to. We were
issued with the brief with which we agreed as a group to meet at the Business Caf to discuss
the task and ways in which we could complete it. There was dominance in the group with Tom
and Holly as they were previously acquainted as opposed to the three individuals that were
myself, Naila and Charlotte. Dan had not yet transitioned into our group. One could say there
was a strong female presence but this did not affect communication or group cohesiveness, and
there was strong participation in the first project as it was a new assignment.
The first task was led by Holly, with whom I volunteered also but to co-operate I retreated to
followership. When presented with the task, Holly showed traits of intelligence (Stogdill 1984)
and initiative (Stogdill 1974) while decoding the task and the brief set upon us. As the task was
new to us, Holly took the participative leadership style (Northouse, 2007) and in terms of the
SL11 model (Blanchard 1985), it can be said that Holly took the middle ground between
delegating and supporting roles, as the task was divided by co-operative decision making and
agreement between members, signifying Holly took a low directive and middle-ground
supportive behaviour. In terms of skills, Holly scores high in Human and Conceptual Skills (Katz,
1955 pg. 34), and using Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding et. al (2000) it can be said that Holly has
high crystallised cognitive ability in leadership, through her placement year at House of Fraser,
which also developed her personality as a confident leader.
Through Hollys experience and the first experience of being a follower, it can be said that Holly
scored well on performance and in effective problem solving. It was true that she had the
responsibility trait (Stogdill 1948; 1974) as the finished piece of work was of high quality. An
abstract conceptualisation can be made that through Hollys crystallised cognitive ability, she
was able to attach herself to the task efficiently, but whilst facilitating the tasks for the out-
group members. Holly has set the standards of the GLPs and I hope to repeat her performance
when it is my responsibility.








Technical Human Conceptual
Fig. 2 Hollys Level of Management skill, according to Katz, R. (1955) Skills as an
effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
2.2 Activity 2 (Week 7-9) Charismatic Leadership: Rachel (Myself)
Within week 7, regardless of the topic I had made my intentions clear that I wanted to volunteer
for the next leadership project, as I did not want the perception that I was scared or
incompetent. The second GLP was concerning Charismatic Leadership, and prior to the group
meeting I did a preliminary search of knowledge so that I could portray the trait of dominance
(Lord, DeVader and Alliger, 1986) and prove my capabilities as a leader for this topic. During
the preliminary search I had the initiative to compile an email upon my knowledge of the topic
and proposed categories of reporting. One might say I was segregating myself from the group
and eliminating communication, but I felt as though I was facilitating the task (Northouse, 2007)
and taking a supportive role in supplying my followers with a context and a background which
would shorten the time for meeting the next day.
I believe I used elements of path-goal theory (Northouse 2007) by removing obstacles, and by
directing each member with a pre-made section, which would cut the time for the meeting. At
this point the group was still cohesive, and participation was strong, also as Dan had joined the
group, this alleviated the individual word limit per person, which created a shared feeling of
relief. In terms of the SL11 model, I believe I was portraying a directing leadership style
(Blanchard, 1985) as my instructions were directive and except for the initial information
gathering email, I offered no additional support to individual members. One might say I was
high in conceptual skill, but lacking the human and technical skill (Katz, 1995 pg. 34), and
drawing upon Mumford, Zaccaro and Harding et. al (2000) one could say I was high in the
motivation skill and willingness to be a leader.
My experience of leadership was more directive than that of Hollys, but I felt this is because I
had a higher task knowledge now using Hollys example, and my motivation is quality work but
also speed and task completion. Judging by the quality of work I received in time to compile it
into a report, I believe my leadership style was successful, however I had not established any
relationships through it, perhaps I should have incorporated a more supportive style to relieve
anonymity within the group. To conclude my experience, I would suggest elements of an LMX
theory (Northouse 2007) to improve my Directive, autocratic leadership style, which may not
be the most successful in all situations.









Technical Human Conceptual
Fig. 3 Rachels Level of Management skill, according to Katz, R. (1955) Skills as an
effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
2.3 Activity 3 (Week 10-12) Leaders, New Challenges and Failure:
Tom
By week 10 Dyadic interactions were beginning to form between myself and Tom, and myself
and Holly, as it was apparent some members of the group were retreating from the position of
leadership. Tom was the next leader to volunteer and the topic was upon the challenges and
failures, to which I found a great interest in this topic, being allocated the heading failings of
Richard Branson. Tom demonstrated the dominance trait (Lord, DeVader and Alliger 1986)
when electing himself as the leader, and perhaps his high level of sociability (Stogdill 1948) and
Human skill (Katz, 1955 pg. 34) resulted from the DNA of the group being majority female.
Nonetheless, when it was Toms turn to lead, the linkages in the group began to weaken, for
example participation in leadership and university tutorials began to fail, and this reflected in
the group meeting. To this, Tom demonstrated a high tolerance (Stogdill 1974) and co-
cooperativeness (Stogdill 1974) in adjusting deadlines to meet members of the groups deadline
needs.
Tom took a similar approach to myself, and assisted members of the group with background
information and dedicated headings to complete 400 words upon, which also portrayed the
dominance trait (Lord, DeVader and Alliger 1986). In terms of the SL11 model, Tom portrayed a
Coaching style with high directive but also high supportive behaviour, as he emailed the team
mid-week to assist with any problems or needs of the group. I felt this was very welcomed and
well-received from the team, and I personally appreciated the gesture of feedback. Regarding
skills, and regarding the situation, Tom displayed brilliant social judgement competences
(Mumford, Zaccaro and Harding et al. 200), and a crystallised cognitive ability from previous
experience as Sainsburys Team Leader as a placement year.
In response to Kolbs Learning cycle, the experience of Toms autocratic (Northouse, 2007)
leadership was a pleasant one, as a follower I felt supported and also a willingness to co-
operate. The quality of work reflected in the final report was also apparent from the other
members, which one could say concludes Toms style of leadership was the most effective yet in
the academic situation.









Technical Human Conceptual
Fig. 4 Toms Level of Management skill, according to Katz, R. (1955) Skills as an
effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.

2.4 Activity 4 (Week 15-17) Leadership, Trust and Ethics:
Charlotte
This week, participation levels began to drop significantly, perhaps it was because those who
possessed the motivation trait (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1991) had already participated in
leadership and so no longer felt motivated. The standard has also begun to drop in quality of
work and meetings, making them tedious, time-consuming and of the same format. Nonetheless,
out of tedious deliberation, it was decided that Charlotte would undertake leadership
responsibility for this task; however it was apparent that the complexity of the reports was
becoming more. Charlotte, again, took form of a delegating behaviour (fig. 1)(Blanchard, 1985),
of a participative nature (Northouse, 2007) perhaps because of a low crystallised cognitive
ability (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding et. al 2000) in experience of leadership. There were,
however, elements of laissez-faire leadership (Northouse, 2007) which reflected in the quality
of the report, which was compiled and not amended. For example, the font of all the individual
work was not amended and so this shows low care of responsibility ( Stogdill 1948)
It was also made known to me that it was Tom who had uploaded Charlottes compiled report,
suggesting laissez-faire (Lewin 1939) behaviour on the part of Charlotte. There is not much to
write about Charlottes input, as there was not much interaction, in this sense I do not believe
her to be supportive. However, in the words of Northouse (2007) perhaps the established
norms and values of the group and established structured task required no leader, as the format
of the task did not need confirming again.
To conclude, the concrete experience of Charlottes leadership does not inspire much to write
about. The simplistic nature of the style did not cause conflict, but did not inspire quality work
as the attitude of the leader was reflected in the participants. I believe in this situation, the
transformational leadership style would have been a huge motivator for the group (Bass, 1985
pg. 20), and in particular a charismatic leader to serve as a role model would have benefited the
group greatly. Had someone reinstated the goals and aims of the reports, and changed the way
in which things were done, for example, instead of dividing the brief into sections and
distributing, set a time constraint of an hour and a competition to who completes it first, with
extrinsic rewards, this may have motivated the group and reignited drive for the group.
However, one did not want to actively experiment this, as the deadlines for other pieces of work
were looming.






Technical Human Conceptual
Fig. 5 Charlottes Level of Management skill, according to Katz, R. (1955) Skills as
an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
2.5 Activity 5 (Week 17-19) Leading High Technology
Organisations: Naila
In comparison to Charlotte, Naila was slightly more motivated as she did not want to be the last
leadership participant. Naila showed initiative (Stogdill 1974) in asking previous leaders for
help and advice before embarking upon the leadership experiment. This also shows a
responsibility trait (Stodgill 1974) as she felt a care for her work to be of good quality which
was admired by followers. Because of increased interaction, the group felt increased
responsibility to cooperate, which suggests that Naila possesses a great degree of Human Skill
(Katz, 1955 pg. 34)
However, Naila was disadvantaged in the fact that she did not possess much Technical Skill
(Katz, 1955 pg. 34) with which defining Technocratic Leadership for the purpose of Activity 5
proved very hard in deciphering topic areas. In terms of the SL11 (Blanchard 1985) Naila fits
into the S3 Supporting Category as she was effective in communicating and co-operating, but
the delegation and directive behaviour of the task proved hard for her, due to the lack of
dominance trait (Mann 1959)
To conclude the experience of Nailas leadership, again I would not deem it effective in the long
run due to the extended time and inconvenience to followers, which she was supported in
within the two weeks, but in the long run, in my opinion, a leader should be dominant (Mann
1959) responsible (Stogdill 1948; 1974) and have knowledge of the task (Kirkpatrick and Locke
1991). Again, from observation I think Expectancy Theory (Northouse 2007) or a
Transformational leadership figure would have been a suitable fit, and one which would
streamline the task, make it more time-efficient and energy-efficient, especially as the heavy
deadlines are upon us now.











Technical Human Conceptual
Fig. 6 Nailas Level of Management skill, according to Katz, R. (1955) Skills as an
effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
2.6 Activity 6 (Week 19-22) Global Leadership and Influences:
Dan
The final leader was Dan, who proved to participate in some tasks, and others not. We had
extended time for this report, and so Dan utilised this time to relax, despite the pleas from
followers to complete the final project so that time and concentration is freed for dissertation
and other work. Dan displayed Task Knowledge (Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991) but at an
inconvenient time, not demonstrating important traits such as adjustment (Mann 1959) and
Cooperativeness (Stogdill 1974). I found Dans leadership style to be pseudo transformational
(Northouse, 2007) as he did not take into account others interests, and in that sense was
autocratic. The external factors that were deemed more important were eventually leadership
neutralisers (Kerr and Jermier 1978)
The ignorance of the followers pleas resulted in non-participation by myself, which in a sense
demoted Dan of his leadership status. I believe he should have taken into account situational
factors concerning each individual, via vertical dyad linkages, which would have prevented
myself become an out-group member. Or socialised transformational leadership in which he
transcended his own interests of relaxing into the interests of the group (Northouse, 2007).
While it is agreeable that Dan possessed high Technical and Conceptual skill (Katz, 1955 pg. 34),
his lack of Human skill cost him the loyalty of his in-group members, which resulted in more
work to be done in his time. Situational factors, such as deadlines, feature much in this.
However, I have learnt from observing this that in a social setting such as University, Human
skill (Katz, 1955, pg. 34) can be the most important in maintaining linkages between
individuals. While Dan did possess general cognitive ability (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding et. al
2000) his personality and social judgement skills betrayed him in gaining support and
cooperation.











Technical Human Conceptual
Fig. 7 Dans Level of Management skill, according to Katz, R. (1955) Skills as an
effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
3.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that our group had in-group and out-group members (Northouse
2007), of which the in-group members (myself, Holly and Tom) had a common interest in the
quest for a first class degree. This was shown typically in the order in which leadership was
participated, as the in-group members showed traits such as dominance (Mann 1959) drive
(Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991) and responsibility (Stogdill, 1948), but nevertheless there was
little to no conflict within our group, and we worked together relatively well.
As mentioned before, the writer of this paper has a strong leaning to the situational approach to
leadership, and believes it to be especially apparent in the situations described above. I have
learned especially that cooperation with members, and maintaining relationships with
members have a direct link to the quality of work completed and quality of communication,
which became scarce within the last remaining weeks. And perhaps the most important
observation would be the need for transformational leadership to keep participants involved
and interested in the tasks. My personal opinion is that Hollys style best suited this situation, as
it most matches TOP management in Fig. 8.


















Fig. 8 Level of Management skill, according to Katz, R. (1955) Skills as an effective
administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
Fig. 9 Kolbs Learning Cycles 1984, adapted from Stice (1987)
Bibliography

Bass, B. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
application. New York: Free Press.
Blanchard. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute manager: Increasing Effectiveness through
Situational Leadership. New York: William Morrow.
Jermier. (1978). The path-goal theory of leadership: a subtextual analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 311-
316.
Katz, R. (1955). Skills as an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
L. D. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions:
An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 402-410.
Locke, a. K. (1991). Leadership: Do Traits matter? The Executive, 5, 48-60.
Mann. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups.
Psychology Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
Mumford, M., Zacaro, S., & Harding, F. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving
complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 23.
Northouse. (2007). Leadership Theory and Practise. London: Sage.
Stice. (1987). Using Kolb's Learning Cycle to Improve Student Learning. Engineering Education, 77(5),
p291-96.
Stogdill, R. (1948). Personal Factors associated with Leadership:A survey of the literature. Journal of
Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Stogdill, R. (1974). Handbook of Leadership: A Survery of theory and Research. New York: Free Press.