Theory of Interactive Leadership - Reflection Paper

...

In his article about how to motivate employees, Herzberg states as one motivator an increase in their responsibilities on a daily basis. One main aim of the theory of interactive leadership is the transformation of responsibility, and so can be stated as an upside for this leadership theory. (Herzberg)

However, it has to be considered that the risk of slacking members can increase as convenience might spread amongst the members.

Whether option to chose will surely depend on a certain situation and might not work every time. Therefor Rooke and William argue that in a working environment every company needs a leader who shows transformational leadership skills.

Based on their ideas, the differences will not ley within personality or philosophy, rather leaders differ themselves by the specific action logics they are choosing.

As main finding of their research they describe an opportunity for every leader to transform from one action logic to another. In an example they use, a young woman who was analyzed as expert in her team but rather preferred becoming an achiever. After several attempts she found a way of converting the feedback into her benefit. By making some experiments in how she can address her peers, she managed to approach a new way of leading. (Rooke and William)

Choosing a Final Action

Similar to the case of the young woman I tried as well to analyze my last feedback I received in this class.

My group assessed myself a five for telling, meaning that I clearly represent my point, but do not worry too much about other´s point of view. (Appendix 3) One of the downsides of a centralized leadership was a loss in creativity as mainly the leader’s ideas are considered when making a decision. Further I could see in my MBTI assessment that I show with 44% an extrovert personality, which I reflect for myself as being open towards changes and new experiences. As Rooke and William wrote in their research, “every company needs a transformational leader” as they will have a positive impact on the company’s performance in the market due to higher employee satisfaction and motivation.

The research shows us, a change in the leadership style does not rely on a change in personality. More important is to use different action logics to address different task in different situations. (Rooke and Williams)

Therefore, I want to change my approach in leading a group by adopting a collateral leadership style. I want to open myself for developing my sense of how to interpret my own traits and how to understand better the behaviors of other team members. By interacting more with them on a personal relation, I want to establish a common feeling of trust and responsibility. I am convinced this new approach of leadership will help me in understanding better the different opinions of each member and decrease stress factors such as meeting deadlines. Further I expect see my team more motivated as with an increase of responsibility the working satisfaction will increase proportionally.

Once I have developed a feeling how I can address different personalities in different situations, I will increase my target of having a direct influence on my peers. Further I can focus towards my preferred Belbin role as a “coordinator”, as we saw:

In every group there has to be a nominated leader!

Appendices

Appendix 1: Description of five common human concerns and three patterns of response

[pic 4]

Appendix 2: Group Feedback

Ben

MBTI

ENTJ

Extravert(31%) iNtuitive(16%) Thinking(44%) Judging(50%)

Personality or Skills

Strength in teamwork

Punctuality

Hardworker

Responsable

Weakness related to working in teams

Tenacious

Perfectionist

Anxious

Your Preferred Belbin team role

Co-ordinator

Most frequent

Belbin role you play in your current work group.

Implementer

Conflict style

(shark, turtle, or teddy bear)

The tortoise: 14.5%

The shark: 22.7%

The teddy bear: 19.1%

The fox: 20%

The owl: 23.6%

.

Appendix 3: Feedback of Debriefing Session

MEMBER NAME:

passive

downloading

facts

empathetic

unsaid

telling

diplomatic

debate

perspective

inquiry

Rishabh

2

4

5

3

1

4

1

5

2

3

Achraf

1

2

5

4

...