Different Definitions Of Leadership, Skills, And Behavioral Styles That Set Me Apart From Everyone Else?

A1. Leadership Style Upon conducting research, it is clear that the definition of “leadership” is not agreed upon. It is fluid, based upon many perceptions, situations, and surroundings. According to Robinson (2010), adopting a specific style of leadership is rather futile as it is, “contingent on the personal traits of the leader, the people being led, and the nature of the activity.” Tools are available to help guide potential leaders in determining a preferred style of leadership. For example, utilizing the “Leadership Self-Assessment

For this assignment, I have decided to use the leadership trait, skills and style questionnaires. For this questionnaire, I asked 5 different people that know me in different contexts in life, such as personal, school, and work environments. For the majority, I rated myself higher on the traits than my fellow colleagues. On some of the traits however, I was rated higher than what I thought. Overall, I averaged a 4/5 which means that everyone agreed with the traits that were given. For the style questionnaire, I found out that I place more emphasis in building relationships rather than completing tasks. Finally, the skills questionnaire, my leadership skills are in the high range for technical skills, and my human and conceptual skills are in the moderate range.

Overview of results: I scored in the Low bracket on Extraversion compared to the general population. My raters and I disagreed significantly on my level of E as the self-other difference was above .50. Further, my raters slightly disagreed with each other regarding my level of E as their SD was between .41-.80.

Overview of results: I scored in the High bracket on Extraversion compared to the general population. My raters and I had some disagreement on my level of E as the self-other difference was between .26 and .50. Further, my raters also had some disagreements with each other regarding my level of E as their SD was between .41 and .80.

Overall, I believe that the test was fairly accurate in measuring certain factors of my personality so much so that it was difficult for me to find certain factors that I did not agree with. However there were two factors, E (dominance) and Q1 (rebelliousness), which I believe were a bit overrated in myself. Aside from these the test seemed to adequately define facets of my personality. For “warmth” (factor A) my sten score read 4, indicating that I am slightly more reserved and critical that easygoing and good-natured. I scored a 7 in “ego strength” (factor C), classifying me as more stable and emotionally mature and less emotional and changeable in attitudes. In dominance (factor E) my sten score read 8, meaning I am more assertive, competitive and stubborn rather than submissive, dependent and humble. I received an average score of 5 in “impulsivity” (factor F) indicating a slightly more serious and sober approach to the world over the cheerful and enthusiastic view. As for “boldness” (factor H), I received a sten score of 4 signifying a more shy and restrained approach to things as opposed to an adventurous genial one. I received a median score of 5 for “emotional sensitivity” (factor I) demonstrating my slightly more tough-minded and self-reliant view in contrast to a sensitive insecure one. For “imagination” (factor M) a score of 8, indicating that I am more imaginative, unconventional and absorbed in ideas and am less so for practicality and the prosaic.

The trait leadership theory focuses on the individual leader’s personal characteristics as the basis of its investigations. It is one of the earliest leadership theories upon whose tenets many researches on leadership have been done. Although it is not very coherent, its heuristic nature has contributed to its significance in leadership research. Zaccaro and Klimoski (2002) define traits of reference to leadership as the stable personality characteristics, which result in a consistent leadership performance pattern, given different scenarios and groups. They include individual personalities, temperament, rationale, prowess, as well as cognitive abilities. Initially, the theory explored both physical and psychological characteristics that tell apart leaders from non-leaders.

My test scores for extraversion is average, meaning i enjoy time with others, but also time alone, which I believe is a true statement about my personality. The highest subdomain I scored on the extraversion test was the activity level, I live a very busy life being a full time student and also maintaining a job is very fast paced. My

My score on Extraversion was 8. The facets of Extraversion and what I got on each are Friendliness 3, Gregariousness 2, Assertiveness 28, Activity Level 90, Excitement Level 8, and Cheerfulness 12. My score on Agreeableness was 86. The facets of Agreeableness and what I got on each are Trust 95, Morality 45, Altruism 79, Cooperation 44, Modesty 86, and Sympathy 79. My score on Conscientiousness was 51. The facets of Conscientiousness and what I got on each are Self-Efficacy 21, Orderliness 68, Dutifulness 72, Achievement-Striving 81, Self-Discipline 91, and Cautiousness 1. My score on Neuroticism was 99. The facets of Neuroticism and what I got on each are Anxiety 98, Anger 94, Depression 94, Self-Consciousness 89, Immoderation 87, and Vulnerability 99. My score on Openness to Experience was 1. The facets of Openness to Experience and what I got on each are Imagination 14, Artistic Interests 1, Emotionality 70, Adventurousness 1,

(PSU, L4, P5.). In the area of extraversion, I scored high. Having these qualities has helped me to get more involved in things and have more experiences furthering my development. There is an old adage ‘there are two sides to every coin’, this may apply here as well. As an extravert, I am very talkative, but I may lack in my active listening skills. I completed an active listening self-assessment, and found that my tendencies to start processing responses and even sometime interrupt before the speaker is completed their thought is an important area for my personal development.

Effective leadership is one critical aspect for organizations today. Pursuing high levels of effective leadership, leaders need to measure their skills and capabilities against different leadership dimensions. This will help leaders to spot dimensions that need enhancement and others that need development. This paper will discuss the benefits of leader’s self-assessment of different dimensions with focus on those related to understanding human behavior.

Leadership is a process where all individuals, the leader and followers, work together to achieve a common goal; it is not any single characteristic of the leader, but an event that occurs between that leader and the followers (Northouse, 2016). Effective leaders exhibit the behaviors of critical thinking, problem-solving, priority setting, skillful communication, and respecting and valuing others (Weiss & Tappen, 2015). I chose the skills approach, behavioral approach, and servant leadership theory based on how they are defined and the type of leader I aspire to become. I will address the primary concepts of each theory as well as the strengths and weaknesses of my test results along with opportunities for improvement.

Most noteworthy were the profiles noting little inclination toward extroversion, which I scored low in that area. In contrast, the high to moderate areas respectively, were conscientiousness (10) and being emotionally stable, agreeable, and open all fell within the six to seven-point range (connect.mheducation.com).

From both my personal and proffesional experience, I can see a strong connection between the traits of a extraversion and conscientiousness individual and myself. In the past I have been regarded as social and assertive (almost overpowering), but also a friend who is willing to help others solve their personal problems, all of which are characteristics of extraversion and conscientiousness. In terms of neuroticism, I also feel as if the low score was an accurate scaling for me as I am a very positive young member of society who is blessed with the oportunities and success that life has presented me with so far.

The FFM consists of five main personality dimensions. Conscientiousness refers to having self control, strong-will, determination, organisational skills and being achievement striving. Agreeableness is defined by being altruistic, selfless, compassionate and eager to help. Anxiety, high levels of stress and personal insecurity defines neuroticism. Openness to experience reflects the ability to have an active imagination, being unconventional and experience new ethical or social ideas. Lastly, extraversion consists of being sociable, energetic and optimistic (Rothmann & Coetzer, 2003). According to psychologists, there are two main ways through which an individual’s personality is formed. Firstly, the science of behavioural genetics, largely through twin studies has shown that “much of our identity is stamped on us from conception” (Wright, 1997, pp. 143-148). In addition, studies have also reveals that our personality is a product of our environment (Roach, n.d). The relative importance of both factors however can be argued and debated.

In approach to the assignment I used the Ten – Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) to rate my own personality. I also recruited the assistance of my husband to score my personality traits using this same measure. According to my scores I believe that I am medium low in extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness while also self-scoring my level of agreeableness at a low. I took a good bit of time in scoring each personality trait, because I wanted to be as truthful with myself as possible.