'Learning Team Analysis\r'

'Learning Team C, in the attractionship Theories and Practice course, consists of five phalluss. distributively member possesses their own encyclopaedism stylus. These witnessing styles translate into occurrence proposition leading behaviors and practices. The differing leading styles of the group members ricochet complete leaders theories studied in the course. Team members participated in the Pearson/Prentice-Hall Self-Assessment Library Website (University of Phoenix, 2011) lead sound judgments that rate the members’ use of military unit, team skills, and conflict handling styles.\r\nThe information gleaned leave behind financial aid team members in understanding the potential match of the differing lead styles on team impellingness. Beth’s outline Team member, Beth Calvano, produced a 107 on the How advanced am I at Building and Leading Teams. This is a advanced stigmatize and shows that Beth will be a solid team member. For the Whatâ₠¬â„¢s my leading bearing judgment Beth rated an 8 on the fearfulness for mass prick and a 17 on the travail section.\r\nThe heaps are high and reflect a substantiative c oncern for teammates and a task oriented teammate. On the What’s my favored Conflict-Handling tendency quiz, Beth’s highest gobs were in collaborating (19), accommodating (19), and compromise (19). The What’s my pet Form of Power assessment shows that Beth prefers the smart and denotative forms of power. Beth’s leadership style reflects the conjecture Y portion of the opening X and Y hypothesis of leadership.\r\nHer high win on the learning team building assessment, in the concern for quite a little and task sections, shows her office to care for others and be quiet complete the task. Beth’s conflict-handling style shows high scores for collaborating, accommodating, and compromise, triple very significant factors for utile team perish. The fact that her p referred forms of power are expert and referent l cobblers lasts 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 non familiar.\r\nHer preference for referent power en trusteds her substantial interpersonal connections with teammates (Hughes, Ginnett, & antiophthalmic factor; Curphy, 1995). Because of the contemporary use of knowledge-based learning in organizations, Theory Y is an effective leadership style (Kopelman, Prottas, & angstrom unit; Falk, 2010). Beth’s leadership style should impact the team positively. Mark’s compend Mark’s score of 79 on the assessment of â€Å"How Good Am I at Building and lead-in Teams” places him in the okay up quartile for potential leaders.\r\nAlthough a high score was anticipated, responses to key questions pertaining to his leadership style indicated he would rank somewhere in the mid to stop number segment of candidates that would build and lead the team. Mark’s leadership style was assessed to be in the swiftness ranges with respect to concern for pack 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 soul who accepts challenges and focuses on achieving tasks. Overall Mark should watch a positive effect on the team.\r\nHe may not be the designated leader initially, however he has skills delimits which are supportive and if needed could evolve into a leadership role which would assure the team of continuous whole step in anatomical structure, production and an atmosphere of motivation, collaboration and joint respect and accountability. Sharra’s Analysis Team member, Sharra J wizards, 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 concentrated team mem ber. 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.\r\nThe 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 as nearly as 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. hazard pproach is that the leadership style is based on the mail service 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 terminate. Her preferred forms of power in like manner show that she will devote a strong and effective impact on the team, because she would be take on an expert in her field and is willing to handle and help other to achieve what she has achieved.\r\nRyan’s Analysis Leadership is a facet of my professional sprightliness that has always been a challenge to me. Until I entered into my take 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 stratumroom, or athletes on the field, I see that speckle I was being much Transformational, there was still a Transactional underpinning to the entire relationship. Stepping in the a leadership position indoors the Curriculum and Instruction plane section in the school district I work in brought an entirely new perspective on leadership.\r\nHonestly, I wish that I had taken this class and these assessments before undertaking this role. jibe to the questionnaires, I scored a 102 in the â€Å"How Good Am I at Building and Leading a Team? ” This places me within the top quartile. What strikes me as arouse is that once I received the results of this survey, it made the results from the next screening more understandable. The â€Å"What’s My Leadership Style? ” assessment showed an approximately even distribution surrounded by my concern for people and my concern for the task. My scores were 11 and 12 one by one.\r\n check to the analysis, this places me in the category of leadership that is most assorted in any profession. From there, the â€Å"What’s My Preferred showcase of Power? ” survey came back with some interest ing measures. Within five-tenths of a score, I had three power types tied for the highest. The first was â€Å" legitimatize” with a score of a 5. Next were â€Å"Expert” and â€Å"Referent” respectively with scores of 4. 7 and 4. 5. The screening was established with the â€Å"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.\r\nThese were â€Å"Collaborating” with an 18, â€Å" agree” with a 17, and â€Å"Accommodating” with a 15. Oddly enough, this left-hand(a) 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 quantifiable results as moving somewhere in in the midst of Transactional and Transformational (Burns, 1978). However, these two categories are fairly generous in their latitude and approach to de lineating leadership styles. Manz and Sims (1991) offer a little more depth in description of leadership styles with their four categories, or styles, of leaders.\r\nAs with the Transactive/Transformative dyad, I found myself striving to be the SuperLeader these two researchers describe. However, and impartial assessment of qualitative, anecdotal comes combined with the quantitative data listed in the previous paragraph would more than in all probability place my style on the b effectuate mingled with Transactor and Visionary Hero. Perhaps the borders between these six several(predicate) 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.\r\nThis is where geologists and ecologists thrive. Physicists yearn for the borderlands of the known and the notional to see what is truly there. For leadership, both general and i ndividual 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. present is where I can authentically cultivate and grotesque style to leadership with different individuals, and with various groups. However, the one issue I must maintain a situational cognizance of is Situational Leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1995).\r\nIn order to maintain a transformative stance, authenticity is a superior that cannot be sacrificed. As such, I must negociate the situation within the acceptable limits I have put in place within myself. This awareness can only come through and 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 t heir assessments. I began to reflect back on my shift in roles.\r\nAs I think back on my transition from a assistant, 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), â€Å"Leadership involves the ability â€Å"to regularise, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and winner 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.\r\nThe 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 peo ple, which was a high score fit in 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.\r\nNext, 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.\r\n later on completing the assessments, the leadership theory I expose would be more of transformational. Subordinates need to feel determine and given a broader look into their job. To praise them in public motivates and builds their confidence. wren (1995) stated, â€Å"There has to be structure in leadership. The leader needs to be to exempt 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 (â€Å"that is good follower acceptance and loyalty”) (pgs. 96-97).\r\nReferences Burns, J. (1978). Transactional and transformational leadership. In J. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s young man: insights on leadership through the ages (pp.100-101). New York: relieve Press. Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987) New approaches to effective leadership. New York:\r\nJohn Wiley. Hersey ,P. & Blanchard, K. (1995). Situational leadership. . In J. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s affiliate: insights on leadership through the ages (pp.207-211). New York: unacquainted(p) Press. Hug hes, 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.\r\nKopelman, R., Prottas, D., & Falk, D. (2010). Construct validation of theory X/Y behavior scale.\r\nLeadership & organizational Development Journal, 31(2), 120-135. Retrieved from ProQuest database.\r\nManz, C. & Sims, Jr., H. (1991). SuperLeadership: beyond the myth of tremendous leadership. . In J. Wren (Ed.) The leader’s companion: insights on leadership through the ages (pp.212- 221). New York: Free Press.\r\nUniversity of Phoenix. (2011). Pearson/Prentice-Hall self-assessment library web site. Retrieved from https://ecampus.phoenix.edu/secure/aapd/SAS/ROBBINS sal3v/sal3v3web.html\r\n'