Essay Instructions: We will pay $15.00 for this order!!
Please critque the below paper on leadership Model and apply to other leadership.
Thanks
See below
Individual Leadership Model and Leader Interview Essay
Introduction
What is a leader? What is leadership? These are two primary questions we have endeavored to answer this semester. This is because understanding these points gives us insight and appreciation for the leaders and leadership, and unfortunately often the lack of both, which we encounter on a daily basis both in our professional and personal lives. At first we focused on more traditional views and definitions of leadership such as Peter Northouse’s definition “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2007, p 3). We explored the four main approaches to categorizing leadership: trait, skills, style and situational, and built up to the concept of transformational leadership (Northouse, 2007). Professor Dennis Winters has taken us on a slightly different course of exploring the internal and human sides of leadership, or as he put it the “flesh and blood embodiment” (Winters, 2008, Lec. 7); concepts such as knowing yourself and creating a self image, framing and face time, and the ideas of congruence and reflexivity. He introduced us to Karl Weick and his seven sensemaking properties, the idea of social capital and that people’s interpretation of events are ultimately derived from their own experience of the world and how they have synthesized that experience for themselves (Winters, 2008). Throughout all of this we have been striving to take this myriad of ideas and concepts and create a model of leadership for ourselves, both in a sense of how we feel we should be as leaders, and how we judge those around as leaders.
My Personal Leadership Model
My own leadership model draws from pretty much every aspect and description of leadership we have studied thus far. The points of the model I have developed are characteristics, skills and styles a person would simply have to have for me to deem them my ideal leader. I would also say that this model can serve as a description of the type of leader I would like to eventually become. Therefore, in my personal leadership model a leader must meet the following descriptions.
The first and most important point of my leadership model is that a leader must know who he/she is. They must be self aware and have good communication with themselves. I feel strongly that unless a person understands themselves, and can communicate clearly to themselves then they cannot hope to do so effectively with others. As professor Winters pointed out, it is so important to be able to, “ yourself and with yourself in so clean and clear a manner that you can communicate with others in the same way” (Winters, 2008, lec. 5).
Second, a leader must be competent in the area of their authority. They must, as Northouse states, have “knowledge about and proficiency in a specific type of work or activity” (Northouse, 2007, p. 40). There is nothing worse then an incompetent leader. Anyone in a position of authority and power must have qualifications for the position they are in. An IT director must understand computers, and a baseball coach must thoroughly understand the game. However a good leader must also recognize that they cannot possibly know everything, and be comfortable tapping those with better skills in certain areas. The IT director may have someone better at programming, or the baseball coach may have an assistant who is a better pitching instructor. The leader must know enough to be able to ask the right questions, and interact with those who may have more technical skill in a certain area. As Deborah Ancona put it “only when leaders see themselves as incomplete …will they be able to make up for their missing skills by relying on others” (Ancona, 2007. 92).
A leader must genuinely seek input from others. This ties to my previous point of a leader recognizing the expertise of others and openly wanting that input when they do not have the answers. A true desire to gain input from others serves to make those others feel appreciated and respected. As Professor Winters said, a leader must, “work with the concerns of the target constituents, their affective and cognitive directions and enter these frames with connections to the most attractive sides of their target issue or objective” (Winters, 2008, Lec 6). It also places the leader outside the realm of a tyrant, but instead shows them to be a true team player.
Tying directly into the point above is my contention that a leader must be willing to see, and sometimes side with, opinions contrary to their own. The seeking of input from others is meaningless if the leader fails to act on other opinions and recommendations when doing so is clearly a better course of action. They must be willing to do this even when the opinion or suggested action is outside the realm of their normal, comfortable “frame” of the world or situation (Winters, 2008, lec. 6). I do not mean to say that a leader should not stand up for what they believe in, only that they recognize that others can be right and they themselves can be wrong, and be willing to side with others when this is the case.
A leader must have a moral core to their being. They must have a set of guiding principals, like honesty, trust and compassion, and never waiver on them. This is not in difference to my point about leaders needing to see and take other opinions as a situation dictates, because I feel they can do so without compromising core values; that a sense of “congruence” can be found between the two concepts (Winters, 2008, lec 6).
A good leader leads from the front, and would never ask another person to do something they would not do themselves. Such leaders set examples they expect others to follow, and “walk their talk”. Good leaders are not hypocritical, nor do they place followers in situations to shield themselves from abuse or the consequence of their actions. Rather they take responsibility for their actions and expect no less from others.
A good leader seeks to bring out the best in those around them, and feels satisfaction when others achieve beyond what they themselves thought was possible. Good leaders want to see others around them succeed, and any goal achievement without growth in their fellow employees is an incomplete victory. Leaders should figure out what makes each of their followers tick, and use that to motivate their followers, to push their limits and show them just how much they can accomplish. Leaders should never be satisfied with “acceptable”, but instead always want more, and show and inspire their followers to get there.
My ideal leader knows how to walk the fine line between conservatism and taking risks. They understand that risks are necessary for moving forward and that great rewards do not come to those who wait. However they also know when to avoid risks and hold back. They have a solid sense of not only their own risk threshold, but also that of their followers, and will play within those boundaries.
Directly correlating to the point above is that a good leader does not fear failure, only the fear of not trying. They do not let the fear of failure hold them back from attempting new things or taking risks that should be taken. This is not to say that they do not have fear, only that they are not controlled by it. They recognize fear as being a good cautionary emotion, but are able to overcome its potentially debilitating effects.
Lastly, my ideal leader has a sense of humor, especially a self depreciating one. I do not think I could follow anyone who was so uptight as to not be able to laugh at themselves. A sense of humor can set followers at ease, and show others that the leader is not haughty. Humor can diffuse tense situations and also serve as an entry point both for understanding the leader, and for them to understand others.
Leadership Interview
In order to explore my model more intensely, and test it in the real world, I chose to interview someone who I knew to have leadership positions, and see if they had the characteristics and skills I have laid out in the preceding paragraphs. Prior to the interview I developed several questions which would guide the conversation towards the ideas in my model. My interview subject was Stephen Czarowski. Stephen is a friend of mine, and is also the music and choir director at my church, St, John the Baptist in Silver Spring. In addition he is director of ensembles at Montgomery College, and adjunct professor of cello at Shepard University. He has worked with performance groups all over the country, as both a highly accomplished cellist and conductor. His answers to my questions were very enlightening.
I began by asking Stephen how he decided to pursue music as a career and he answered that it came from his family, with his father being a skilled pianist and his mother as a clarinet player. He also grew up very close to New York City and thus had easy access to some of the best performing groups in the world. He told me that he was drawn to the “passion” of music, and that he loved the fact that it is a “universal language.” He also told me that he loved the fact that music allows him to “spread a message to somebody, or inspire somebody.”
I asked Stephen if he had any particular teachers in music while growing up that truly inspired him, and what about them did so. He named two; Evan Cooper in high school for his endless encouragement and support, such as allowing Stephen to skip gym class to practice, and Carter Bray in college, his cello instructor. Stephen told me that the reason he appreciated these people so much was that their emphasis was on “being human….that we are all working together”. These ideas influenced his style of conducting and leadership toward a very group centered focus, with no room for egotism on the part of the conductor. I then asked Stephen if his style of conducting and leadership always held true, or whether he was forced to change his style depending on the needs of the group he was working with; whether he has to, “put on different psychological and sociological ‘make up’ for situations” (Winters, 2008, lec. 5). He concurred that different groups required different leadership approaches. He gave the example of his collegiate ensemble by saying he “cannot tolerate lateness…sloppiness…or being unprepared because in the real word if they have a gig and they are late they will never get hired again, and so I am very tough on them because they need to be trained. But when I am working with a choir of volunteers you cannot be so dogmatic. Every single situation I go into…you have to react. Every situation you are in is different, and part of being a leader is factoring that in”.
Following this I asked if Stephen had ever faced a situation where he had faced a choice between what was right and what was easy. He gave me a few examples of times when he has wanted to challenge his student ensembles with difficult pieces of music while his college board really wanted him to do easier pieces. Stephen told me, “I don’t take the easy road, because when you are teaching musicians you have to expand their knowledge”. He mentioned that a good conductor needs to expand the ensembles horizons, while at the same time convincing the people funding the ensemble to allow you to push them. In such cases choosing what the board wanted would not have been what was best for the group. Pushing his students brought up the point of knowing the groups limitation, and of taking risks. He told me, “you have to know where to take a risk, but taking a risk…you can shoot yourself in the foot. Leaders have to realize when we make mistakes we make mistakes… nobody is perfect…we are humans.” Stephen shared with me his displeasure at the current political race in which no one apologizes for their actions or mistakes. “Hell, when I make a mistake I am the first to admit it”, he said. He provided me an example of a time he chose to do a piece with his ensemble that turned out to be too much for them, and although he was sure he was going to be fired the board was pleased that he had admitted his mistake both to them and the students for “taking a risk in the wrong direction”, and they continued to support him.
The next question I put to Stephen was that of whether or not leaders were born or made. He answered that he felt people could be, “born with leadership capacities, or be capable of leadership, but magically you are going to just be a leader? No. Growing up I had no leadership qualities. I think you are not born into it”. To Stephen leadership is about respect. He said, “part of being a leader is when people start looking up to you, or have respect for you. You can be a leader and nobody likes you, or you can be a leader where people respect you, and those are two very different things”. To him part of that respect comes from meeting people on their own terms. He told me, “you have to, as a leader, meet people on a certain ground. If you meet on their level then you can take them to your level”. At the same time however he hates the word “maestro”, calling it, “fabricated garbage”, and adding that he cringes every time he is introduced as “Maestro Czarowski”. He does not agree with its connotation of being on such a higher plane then everyone else, and he tells his students, “you are not referred to as ‘maestro’, you are a conductor”.
One of my final questions to Stephen was about his core principals, what they were and if he could ever see an instance, outside of something completely ridiculous, where he would compromise them. He answered saying, “my principals are honesty, and to serve the music, and I think if you compromise any of those, at any time, you are not serving what you believe in. I was once told by Leonard Slatkin never to take a gig where you don’t know the work and where you cannot give your full heart. You always have to love and respect the people you are working with. You may not be their friend but you have to respect them”. He added, “I do not think we value each other enough in this society”.
Throughout our interview Stephen made several general comments about his views of leadership not linked to any particular question that I feel need to be included here. He said, “we as leaders have to be always cognizant of how we are going to be inspiring to people and how we are going to help them achieve their goals”. He told me, “being a leader is much more then saying ‘people look up to me’. Ok but why? There is something about , there is a magnetism. The bad too. Look at Saddam or Bin Laden. They have leadership qualities, otherwise they would not have people joining them”. I was very pleased with my interview with Stephen because he exemplifies the majority of the points in my leadership model.
Synthesis of the Interview and Model
When comparing my interview with Stephen to the points of a leader in my model I am very pleased, because I think he exemplifies most of my model in action. He is, for one thing, highly qualified for the positions he is in, so there is no problem on the “competence” front. At the same time I have personally observed him defer to others judgment in choir rehearsals on questions of pronunciation and the timing of breaths, so I feel he fits the model of being comfortable with not being an expert in all things. Indeed throughout the interview he mentioned his quest for continued learning from others, and valuing the input of others. This also equates to him seeking genuine input from others in the group, and changing his opinion if a better option is presented. His discussion with me of his dislike of the word “maestro” is a great example of this.
His commitment to his moral principals of honesty and serving the music are obviously very strong, as is his desire to see those around him succeed. Clearly as a teacher this must be a principal of central importance, but his continued action to push his students with difficult pieces and stringent rules of behavior attest to his need to better those around him and expand their horizons He is certainly no hypocrite, and most definitely “walks his talk”. I have personally seen him become very animated when our choir successfully figures out a tricky part of our music, such is his personal pleasure in seeing us succeed.
As his interview responses attest, Stephen is clearly is not afraid to take a risk, whether in pushing his students musically or in turning down conducting jobs for which he may not be suited. He is well enough in tune with his students to know how far he can push them while keeping things, as Professor Winters put it, “within their intellectual resources” (Winters, 2008, lec. 4). He freely admitted to me that they are now much better for all his pushing. In this he certainly fits my qualification of never being satisfied with the status quo, or being content with the acceptable. In a portion of the interview which my recorder did not record I asked Stephen if fear of failure had ever kept him from doing something or trying something new. He told me that it had not, but that fear of failure was always there. He seems very clear on taking risks that are calculated, and which have enough of a potential benefit to be worth the taking.
Lastly, although I did not ask him this directly, I know Stephen to have a very good sense of humor, both toward himself and with others. His jovial nature makes each rehearsal much more enjoyable and has certainly endeared himself to the choir members. The importance of this cannot be understated, especially with group of volunteer members who mostly come to our choir to enjoy the music and each others company in our faith.
So what does all this mean? So I found a leader who fits my model, so what? Well for one thing it shows that my model is workable and can truly exist, which is important. Clearly I tried to pick a person whom I felt might fit my model, but I could not have known exactly how close the match would be. Finding a real world example shows my model to be coherent and plausible. However, not every person with leadership positions or abilities will fit my model, which is why it is my personal model, rather than a general overview of all leaders. I am personally pleased with my model. It is clear to me that my model will continue to grow and develop as I gain more experiences in my personal and professional life, and perhaps sections of it will be omitted over time, or become less relevant in certain situations. Perhaps I will use some reflexivity to think about how I thought up this model, and reposition it for my future situation. As Professor Winters said, “a process ends only when you find your way to the cemetery” (Winters, 2007, lec. 5). For now my model serves as an excellent bench mark for me to use while engaging the leaders I come in contact with, and I would quite pleased to find myself in a leadership role in the future exemplifying these very principals.
Referenced Works
Northouse, P.G. (2007) Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Winters, Dennis (2008) Recognizing Leadership and Followership: An Intra-and Interpersonal Experience. Lecture 4. MGT 615, Section 1111. Posted on WEBTYCO.
Winters, Dennis (2008) Leadership and Communication in Business Scenarios: Organizational Synergy Across Cultures from Sumer to Enron. . Lecture 5. MGT 615, Section 1111. Posted on WEBTYCO.
Winters, Dennis (2008) Leadership and Communication and Persuasion in Business/Political Scenarios: A Model for Cross Cultural Scenarios. Lecture 6. MGT 615, Section 1111. Posted on WEBTYCO.
Winters, Dennis (2008) The Charismatic and Transformational Leader of Organizational Change: Identity and Identification. Lecture 7. Mgt 615, Section 1111. Posted on WEBTYCO.
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ancona, D. & Malone, T. et.al. (2007). In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard
Business Review, February, p. 92.
Winters, Dennis (2008) Communication, Leadership and Decision-making: Putting Intra- and Interpersonal Theory to Work in Intercultural Negotiating and Decision-making. Lecture 8-9. Mgt 615, Section 1111. Posted on WEBTYCO.
