A511.3.3.RB - Directive and Supportive Behaviors

Hello again! For this blog post I will be reflecting on the behavioral and situational approaches to leadership. In the behavioral approach of leadership, there are two main types of actions being either task or relationship oriented (Northouse, 2016, p. 71). The aim for task-oriented behaviors is to facilitate goal accomplishments whereas relationship-oriented behaviors aim at developing followers. These two leadership behaviors are considered to be independent of each other and can be viewed as a continuum as shown below with a concern for results (task-oriented behavior) versus concern for people (relationship-oriented behavior):

Photo: The leadership grid displaying generalized behaviors based on a continuum between concern for results and concern for people (Northouse, 2016, p. 76).

From the leadership grid, there are five distinct leadership styles that vary between the level in task behavior compared to relationship behavior. Switching off between authority-compliance management style and the country-club management style are considered paternalistic/maternalistic in that they aim at making key decisions by rewarding loyalty and punishing non-compliance. This is considered as not being effective method of leadership because it dissociates the workers from the task. When it is integrated in a team management approach, it becomes more effective because the two behavioral traits support one another (Blake & Mouton, 1981). This type of management is found at my work place in the laboratory because each section has their own area of responsibility and is able to meet mission requirements while following the strategic vision set forth by upper management (Romano, 2017). Our section has to meet certain capability criteria and is able to work with putting forth our own expertise to make it happen. This respect that is reciprocated allows people to become taken care of on a professional level because their opinions matter. The actions from the behavior of our leaders directly affect the tasks and relationships developed in an organization.

In the situational approach model of leadership, there is a focus on having a leader adapt their method depending on the situation. Similar to the behavior model in looking at actions as either task or relationship oriented, the situational model assesses directive and supportive behaviors (Northouse, 2016, p. 94). The directive behaviors are similar to the task-oriented actions in that they are aimed at accomplishing a goal. The supportive behaviors mimic the relationship-oriented action in developing a team that is able to contribute comfortably. The situational approach looks at the competencies of the workers and suggests a particular type of leadership in order to develop the worker as shown below:

Photo: Situational leadership diagram depicting four leadership styles based on directive and supportive behavior (Northouse, 2016, p. 95).

The ability of a leader to change their style between delegating, supporting, coaching, or directing can help to develop a worker to become more productive in their output. This leadership model has been successful in the marketplace setting where many scenarios can be analyzed and prescribed a practical method. This leadership model has been popularized by Dr. Paul Hersey in building leaders through diagnosing a company's performance readiness or competency level (CLS, 2018). A notable strength of this leadership model is that it has the flexibility to adapt depending on the situation so supportive behaviors can adjust as well as the directive behavior to best meet a worker's development level.

In both the behavioral and situational approaches, the relationship and supportive behaviors are in terms of being able for a leader to connect with their followers. This is in an attempt to inspire or motivate them to achieve goals. In my personal approach, the development of this type of relationship is embedded in a servant type leadership that consists of principles including empathy, awareness, building community, persuasion, conceptualization, and growth (Smale, 2018). These principles in terms of behavioral and situation seek to foster an environment that is relevant to the follower. Thus, a leader should behave in such a way that persuades followers to push towards an organization's vision by being empathetic to their personal development. This will allow the community to have greater passion for the mission through the clear conceptualization and awareness developed. The servant leadership allows two-way communication. So, if there is a misunderstanding or lack of competency, then it can be addressed immediately.

Blanchard (2008) includes a leader’s directive and supportive behaviors as the foundation of his situational leadership theory. Directive behavior typically represents a one-way communication where the leader directs the activity that the follower will complete. Supportive behaviors are considered “two-way” where the responses exhibit emotional and social support and the follower participates with the leader in the discussion. Consider some of your roles (parent, child, friend, leader, follower, etc.) and provide examples of how you use supportive and directive behaviors.

From childhood up to my college years, many of the tasks given to me were directive in nature. As a child, my parents were primarily directive by navigating what I did with my time from when I would be able to play with my friends to when I went to bed. As I grew up, they slowly progressed to become more supportive in helping me reach my academic and professional aspirations as a scientist and military officer. This mimics the country-club management and authority-compliance management style in the behavioral model of leadership that exhibits paternal/maternal characteristics. At first it was more authoritative, but then became more country-club style as I matured as a person. This is typical for many people where we get a sense of these types of leadership styles as we navigate life from childhood to adulthood. My college years were directive in nature with many professors and mentors preparing us for the real-world. They equip us with the base skills necessary to compete for a highly technical job or competitive position.

When I first started out in my career as a Program Manager, my team knew that I was fresh out of college and helped me to become a better leader and manager through supportive behaviors. The team was at a high competency level whereas me being a leader was lacking competency. Although I was in-charge of them, they knew that I needed their assistance to be effective in learning my position well. I would be given a tasking from upper management requesting information or a status report. From this, I would direct this action to my team, but did so in a manner that I was able to get the information through supportive behavior. I would take the time needed to learn from the technicians that would help me understand how it related to the tasking. It was important for me to learn from them and to develop the relationship first otherwise they would not have been open enough to give me the depth of information and would have been as minimal as possible otherwise. To create this atmosphere, I would figure out what kind of dessert or snack they liked and would make it for the whole team. This fostered a stronger relationship and built an atmosphere where they were more than happy to teach me that ended up making me a better leader and manager over time. I slowly began to move into a delegating and supporting role in the branch and was able to help out new workers that came into my team. I became more proficient and could teach the new workers a thing or two.

In my current position as Deputy Branch Chief, there is a balance between directive and supportive behaviors that I convey because the team is looking for my guidance on how we should proceed as a branch, but will only be as receptive if I can earn their trust as a leader and manager. For my team, we have a mix of senior and junior scientists so it is important that I am proficient in my position and can make the best decisions on behalf of the team to senior management. I have to exude more of a coaching and directive style of leadership because I am in-charge of many subject matter experts that need guidance on how to apply their talents in order to meet the mission. I have to train them in certain aspects administratively, but have to be able to trust them in their abilities as a scientist to give me the results that I need. In my position, it is important to relay the strategic and mission in a directive manner. As far as supportive behaviors go, I have to ensure that I take care of their career by giving them the proper recognition that they deserve for the work that they do. If any of my workers feels unappreciated, it affects morale which hurts team motivation. Thus, it is important to have supportive behaviors to ensure my workers are content on a personal level, but maintain my status as a Deputy Branch Chief by ensuring the mission is reached through appropriate directive actions.

References

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1981). Management by grid principles or situationalism: Which?. Group & Organizational Studies, 6(4), 439-455.

Blanchard, K. (2008). Situational leadership. Leadership Excellence, 25(5), 19.

CLS. (2018). Our history. The Center for Leadership Studies. Retrieved from http://situational.com/the-cls-difference/situational-leadership-who-we-are/

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

Romano, S.A. (2017, November 8). Ions and betas and treaties, oh my!. United States Air Force. Retrieved from http://www.25af.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1368093/ions-and-betas-and-treaties-oh-my/

Smale, T. (2018, January 24). ‘Servant leadership’ and how its 6 main principles can boost the success of your startup. Entrepreneur Media, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307923

A511.2.3.RB - Reflecting on Leadership Traits

Welcome back to the second week! 😎 The focus of this discussion will be on the two models on leadership derived from either traits or skills. The trait-approach model is based on the theory that certain personality traits are innate within certain people that enable them to become leaders (Northouse, 2016, p. 40). From this stance, this theory was challenged to identify a definitive list of characteristics for leadership, which shifted to the interactions between leaders and their situation instead. In the skills-approach model, an emphasis on the competencies of a leader is centralized in three personal skills including: technical, human, and conceptual (Northouse, 2016, p. 69). The technical skills represent the proficiency in type of work, the human skills are interpersonal capability with dealing with people, and the conceptual skills is being able to work with ideas and concepts.

Between the two models, the research boils down to the actions that a leader takes based on their capabilities (skills) and personality characteristics (traits). There is a mix between a leader's own natural instincts and environmental situation along with the ability to learn and develop their proficiency as a leader over time. This is evident in a lecture that I have analyzed by Ms. Roselinde Torres (2013) that discusses what makes a great leader in the 21st century below:

Ms. Torres focuses on three questions that are based on either traits, skills or a mixture of both. The three questions on what makes a great leader are:

1. Where are you looking to anticipate the next change to your business model or your life?
2. What is the diversity measure of your personal and professional stakeholder network?
3. Are you courageous enough to abandon a practice that has made you successful in the past?

In the first question, the trait-approach would look at characteristics such as being proactive versus reactive and in the skills-approach would look at the developing a planning state-of-mind that can be refined with experience through a conceptual and technical basis. For the second question, it is the personality trait of sociability and emotional intelligence (EI) for the trait-approach and on the human interpersonal skills for the skills-approach model. Lastly, for the third question, the leadership characteristics of courage comes from self-confidence for the trait-approach model and the insight from a mixture of technical and conceptual skills in the skills-approach model.

Each of these questions can be analyzed through both models, but the most coherent depiction of reality combines the two models to give supporting details.

In considering the traits approach to leadership, what are some of your traits you consider adding or detracting from your ability to lead?

My job working as an U.S. Air Force Officer comes with living and practicing the three Air Force Core Values being: Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence in All We Do (United States Air Force Academy, 2018). Each tenant holds different leadership traits that are pertinent to the core value. For 'Integrity First' the main traits of interest include honesty, courage, and accountability. In 'Service Before Self' characteristics of duty, loyalty and respect are paramount. Lastly, 'Excellence in All We Do' centralized on the aspects of mission, discipline, and teamwork.

Each of these core values have been instilled in me through my commissioning source starting in the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program in college and has been maintained throughout my career. These core values are meant to be applied to our every action and has been supported through decades of military leaders.

After decades of studies of leadership traits (see image below), it was found that some traits were more consistent than others and included: intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Northouse, 2016, p. 40).

Photo: Studies of leadership traits and characteristics adapted from "The Bases of Social Power" that provides a summary of traits identified by researchers from the trait-approach model of leadership (Northouse, 2016, p. 22).

These recurring traits can be linked to the Air Force Core Values with 'Integrity First' referring to the integrity trait, 'Service Before Self' to the sociability aspect, and 'Excellence in All We Do' as a combination of intelligence, self-confidence, and determination.

Overall, I would not detract from any of these traits, but rather will continue to work on each of these traits and hone them through the skills-approach model to become a better leader. It is important to practice the process of leadership because it takes experience to learn how to become a better leader. We all start with some leadership capability, but the potential that each of us can go varies based on how much effort, time, and care that we apply to our leadership style. According to Katz (1974, p. 91), much of these skills are developed through many years of experience and coaching. Technical skills are developed by learning it in industry or educational institutions over time. Human skills are rooted in psychology, sociology, and anthropology theories, but are best practiced by socializing with others with our own interpersonal capabilities. Lastly, our conceptual skills may be more abstract, but can be coached on from our mentors and leaders. All managers and leaders require competency in these skills in one way or another and can be applied with the various traits that each person has.

Considering Stogdill’s (1948, 1974) findings that leadership traits must be relevant to a leader’s actions (Northouse, 2015), how are traits important to your leadership style?

Stogdill contested the thought that all leaders possessed the same set of traits, but rather the traits that they possess must be relevant to the situation of the leader's function. In Stogdill's first set of survey results, there was an implied notion that leadership is determined by situational factors and modified it in his second survey that moderated traits and situation  (Northouse, 2016, p. 20). In his latter research, Stogdill found that the trait-approach is linked to leadership in the following ten characteristics:

1. Drive for responsibility and task completion.
2. Vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals.
3. Risk taking and originality in problem solving.
4. Drive to exercise initiative in social situations.
5. Self-confidence and sense of personal identity.
6. Willingness to accept consequences of decision and action.
7. Readiness to absorb interpersonal stress.
8. Willingness to tolerate frustration and delay.
9. Ability to influence other people's behavior.
10. Capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand.

This shows the relevance of the situation in determining which traits a leader decides to exhibit. What can be used to distinguish leadership is the concept of EI. The idea can be summed up to the aspect of sociability and being able to connect with followers in order to earn the respect as a leader. According to Goleman (1998) there are five components of EI as shown below:

Photo: The five components of emotional intelligence at work (Goleman, 1998, p. 88).

These five components help connect our personality traits and capabilities that distinguish our leadership style. Goleman (2000) differentiated between six primary types of leadership being: commanding, visonary, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting, and coaching. Each leadership style utilizes certain traits more than others. In the commanding style, there is a demand for immediate compliance that is rooted in the drive to achieve, initiative, and self-control. For a visonary leader, their main goal is to move followers towards a vision through self-confidence and empathy as a catalyst for change. The affiliative leader aims at promoting harmony and creating emotional bonds with followers. They exude empathy through solid communication and relationship building. In a democratic leadership style, there aims to have a consensus through follower participation that leans heavily on collaboration and communication. A pacesetting leader sets the standard for performance and is conscientious on ability with a drive to achieve set by initiative. Lastly, the coaching style of leadership focuses on developing followers to become leaders for the future. They also exude empathy along with self-awareness to develop others.

The primary leadership traits that I portray would be considered sociability in terms of collaboration and intelligence in terms of technical and analytical abilities. I would say that my natural state for a leadership style would be considered to be affiliative and coaching. The way I interact with my co-workers and subordinates exude is people-oriented with a servant disposition. I aim to take care of my team and will cater to their needs so that they are able to do the best job as possible for the mission. In a laboratory setting that I currently work in, this type of leadership has worked well.

However, back in ROTC, I had to develop my commanding and democratic leadership. When working with the younger cadets, I had to utilize traits that embodied an authoritative figure while being democratic with my cohorts in making leadership decisions for the wing. From these life experiences, I have learned that certain personality traits are important for being applied to different leadership styles. Overall, we can hone traits that come more naturally to us and work on characteristics that may not come as easily when practicing a certain type of leadership. For some people, it may be easier to execute one leadership over another because it jives well with their innate characteristics, but for others it can be practiced on. Leadership is a process and is something that anyone can practice with their baseline traits that they have.

References

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader?. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 82-91.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

Katz, R.L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), p. 90-102.

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

Torres, R. (2013). What it takes to be a great leader [Video File]. TED Conferences, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/roselinde_torres_what_it_takes_to_be_a_great_leader/transcript#t-516924

United States Air Force Academy. (2018). Character + leadership. United States Air Force. Retrieved from https://www.academyadmissions.com/the-experience/character/center-for-character-and-leadership-development/

A511.1.3.RB - Two-Way Street

Happy New Year! Welcome back to my blog. These next few months I will be answering prompts from my course on 'Organizational Leadership,' which focuses on leadership in the context of a management approach through a business or other organized system. This week I will discuss the distinction between management and leadership and how the process of leadership for a leader is also influenced by their followers.

Photo: Distinctions between the functions of management and leadership in terms of an organization (Northouse, 2016, p. 14).

The explanation of leadership has changed through the decades from being based in terms of dominance in the 1920s to becoming more scholarly focusing on influence, traits, and transformations in character motivation by the 1980s (Northouse, 2016, pp. 2-5). Currently, academia is focusing on the process and approaches of leadership rather than defining it. This is reinforced in the research done by Epitropaki et al (2017) that shows academic publications on leadership have recurring themes of leadership development and identity within the past decade. Leadership is not confined by a set of character traits, but is a process in which a leader develops with their followers to accomplish goals towards a vision.

One debate that still goes on is the difference between leadership and management. In a sense, management can be seen as a means to accomplish activities and optimize routines whereas leadership is able to influence others and create change. The list above depicting the functions of management and leadership shows these distinctions that are generally agreed upon by scholars. Leadership in this view is multidirectional in that a leader influences the relationship that it has with their followers on a personal level and management is unidirectional in using the worker to complete a task through authoritative power. Zaleznik (1977, p. 73) further emphasizes this point that managers are unidirectional by that they maintain the balance of operations for a business whereas leaders are able to create new approaches and are innovative in exploring new visions for a business. Managers tend to be more impersonal and passive in their attitudes towards goals because they are binded to the conceptions of work that are aimed at optimizing certain aspects of business (e.g. fast-tracking scheduling, decreasing personnel issues, etc.). On the other hand, leaders adopt an active attitude that is more invested personally with goals. Leaders can invoke a vision and can determine what direction a business takes.

Northouse (2015) indicated that leadership is a process and leaders affect and are affected by followers. Northouse further discussed that leadership involves influence. Think about a leader you have worked for, whom you have influenced. In what ways did you influence the leader?

In the dichotomy between leader and follower, each role follows through a transactional process that aims at developing a mutual purpose. This mutual purpose gives meaning and a motivation for the follower that is developed by the leader. Leaders inspire and motivate followers to accomplish goals in order to reach a vision. Leaders may be the focus of the group change and embodies the will of the group, but followers keep leaders accountable. This has progressively been noted with the growth in information through technology that has enabled followers to make leaders more transparent in the power structure (Northouse, 2016, p. 10). Leaders and followers are two sides of the same coin and can influence each other.

In my personal experience as being an Officer in the United States Air Force, there has been a range of leadership styles and approaches that I have been able to witness and experience as a subordinate. Being a junior officer at my new assignment working in an explosive processing facility, I was the link between the technicians and upper management. I was able to voice concerns to upper management and could create change and influence the decisions or policies on behalf of the technicians. For example, before an revision was made on a regulation or a new policy was directed, I would be able to inform upper management on the pros and cons and how it would affect us as a section. Upper management would take my inputs and it would affect how they imposed a new rule or would modify it to cover our concerns.

How did the relationship develop?

The relationship between myself and upper management developed to become more symbiotically trustworthy and mutually respected. I became more competent in my job and upper management listened to my inputs with more reliance. Eventually this developed the relationship where upper management would give me more responsibility because they knew I would be able to handle it and deliver. I was able to develop myself from working as a manager to a manager that could lead. This type of growth is mentioned by Zaleznik (1977, p. 76) in that the development of leaders through personal influences or one-to-one relationships helps to develop a culture of individualism for leadership. Ultimately, being a good follower to upper management allowed myself to grow into a leader for them. I was eventually allowed to voice my thought on what direction the organization should take because of the trust developed between myself and the leaders of the organization.

What was one important way in which you were impacted by your relationship with that leader?

An important way that I was impacted by this relationship with my leaders was that they genuinely cared in the mission as well as myself as a person and that motivated me as a worker/follower. Because of this, I was inspired and believed in the mission and purpose of the work myself and pushed hard to succeed on the goals set forth. This reflects the integrative definition by Winston & Patterson (2016, p. 7) that mentions leaders are able to influence followers and can utilize them to achieve organizational mission goals and objectives. This development of a strong relationship between leader and follower expends spiritual, emotional, and physical energy that creates a synergetic environment. This focus can be seen in the four pillars of resiliency that the U.S. Air Force (2014) practices that aims at developing spiritual, emotional, physical, and social success. The personal bond that is developed between leader and follower takes time and effort to develop and goes beyond the managerial position to a personal investment in trust and support that transcends organizational dogma to the leader's vision in directing the organization.

References

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C. & Lord, R.G. (2017). Leadership and followership identiy processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104-129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing.

U.S. Air Force. (2014, August 19). Comprehensive airmen fitness: A lifestyle and culture. United States Air Force. Retrieved from http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/494434/comprehensive-airman-fitness-a-lifestyle-and-culture/

Winston, B.E. & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different?. Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.

A500.9.3.RB - Course Reflections

It's been a little while, but I am back with a reflection on a course I have been finishing up called 'Leadership Foundations in Research.' I will sum up the key pieces of information that have resonated with me as well as highlighted moments from the experience. Hope you enjoy and are able to take a some gems with you! 😊👏

Photo: A well-recognized sculpted piece of art depicting the mental anguish or contemplation known as 'The Thinker' created by French artist Auguste Rodin (Rodin, 1901).

Reflect on your perceived value of this course. Include both positive and negative aspects of your experience. What might you have done to improve your learning experience in this course?

The purpose of this class was to develop critical thinking skills, recognize fallacies, and conduct a project through action research methodology. The opening of the course focused on critical thinking by overcoming and understanding the pitfalls of fallacious thinking. It showed a lengthly list of common fallacies that people may intentionally or inadvertently commit (Dowden, 2003). For example, people may go with traditional wisdom because it has always been done a certain way, but it may not be substantiated by facts or evidence. By understanding how to breakdown and reflect on our thinking helped to lead in finding what the 'truth' is. This was insightful because it captured common misleading arguments that can seem to make sense on the surface, but are not internally consistent. This leads to some key points when thinking about reasoning by The Critical Thinking Community (2015) which analyzes thinking as such:

• All reasoning has a purpose
• All reasoning is an attempt to figure something out, to settle some question, to solve some problem
• All reasoning is based on assumptions
• All reasoning is done from some point of view
• All reasoning is based on data, information, and evidence
• All reasoning is expressed through, and shaped by, concepts and ideas
• All reasoning contains inferences by which we draw conclusions and give meaning to data
• All reasoning leads somewhere, has implications and consequences

Incorporating these ideas into my thought process and reflecting on my own thinking has allowed me to refine how I think. This has been an overall positive impact because it helped bring substance to how concretely I find truth and apply it to my everyday thinking. This is seen through understanding action research and its aim in allowing us as an individual to conduct research and learn from it through our own experience. By using these techniques developed in this class, I will be able to continue on assessing my own thought process in a critical manner and can continue to conduct thorough action research to better live my life.

How might the University or your instructor provide additional support for your learning?

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and the instructors do very well in keeping the courses consistent and relatable to one another. Each course helps to build on each other and has applicable information that is useful to my professional and even personal life. I think that everything that the university is doing currently is effective and is the right amount for me to process as I work on completing my degree.

Were there topics covered in this course that seem particularly relevant or irrelevant to your experiences and to what you expect to come in future courses?

This course was a great stepping stone into my core capstone courses and I look forward to see how the other classes develop with this as the fundamental starting point. All of the topics so far fit in well and made sense in the grand scheme of things. Looking forward for more to come!

References

Dowden, B. (2003). Fallacies. California State University. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

Rodin, A. (1901). The thinker (le penseur) [Sculpture]. Retrieved from https://www.nga.gov/Collection/art-object-page.1005.html

The Critical Thinking Community. (2015). The analysis and assessment of thinking. Foundation for Critical Thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-analysis-amp-assessment-of-thinking/497

A500.5.1.RB - Critical Thinking about Critical Thinking

Hey, hey again! 😊 Welcome back to another week on my blog. So far, we have seen a lot in terms of critical thinking and leadership and I am about to reflect more on this subject. For this blog entry, I will be assessing how my thinking has changed in light of these critical thinking concepts. Hope you find something worth learning from my personal growth!

Take some time to reflect on the current state of your critical thinking competencies. Consider your thinking processes when you started the course. Have they changed at all?

Before I started this course, my way of thinking had been heavily influenced by the scientific process. This was due to having a strong ability and inclination to the math and science fields at a young age. This tendency was further nurtured by being involved in elementary and junior high school science fairs. By being able to successfully develop an experiment and be recognized by winning awards for my work as a kid helped to further spark my interest and confidence in this area. These events led me towards taking more challenging math and science classes as I progressed academically to obtain my degree in Physics and land my job as a scientist for the military.

In science, the way of finding out the answer to a question is to form an experiment. This method is usually inspired from our own observations that prompts us to ask a question. From this question, we can infer or deduce a plausible outcome or make an educated guess known as a hypothesis. From this, we can develop an experiment to test this possibility through falsifiability to either confirm or reject the hypothesis.

Photo: The scientific process shown as a diagram (HowStuffWorks, 2017).

The steps of the scientific process correlate to many of the elements and standards of critical thinking. According to Nosich (2012, p. 5), the three parts of critical thinking include asking questions, answering the questions with reason, and then believing the results. This relates to the scientific process where ‘asking the question’ corresponds to observations and questioning. The ‘answering the question with reason’ relates to the development of the hypothesis and experiment to be tested out. Lastly, ‘believing the results’ is similar to accepting or rejecting the original hypothesis.

Many of the elements of reasoning such as information through gathering data, evidence, and observations is heavily used in science (Nosich, p. 55). This element along with others such as assumptions, context, and concepts can help a scientist come up with a more robust and logical hypothesis. This can be further reasoned through the standards of thinking such as accuracy or depth and breadth to help filter out fallible reasoning.

This way of thinking through the scientific processes is where my mindset was when I started the course. I would typically observe and analyze things, but just from a more scientific scrutiny point of view. This course made the methodology of critical thinking more applicable to all other areas of knowledge and not only limited to just scientific reasoning. It helped to clarify the elements and standards and showed the different dimensions and tools to use for critical thinking. Overall, it just helped to cement these ideas and give it more depth and clarity to understand each component of critical thought.

Have you been able to internalize any of the techniques and concepts you have learned?

From this class, I have been able to internalize the differences between each standard and element of critical thinking. Before, it was more of an open line of thought that aimed to be critical, but not in a completely thorough sense. My thinking was not thoroughly vetted and may have missed some critical element filters. Now, by having all of the standards and elements differentiated and explained, it has added definition and a more complete picture for how to critically think better. I have learned how to better analyze all types of observations and information that I come across every day from understanding the various standards and elements.

What will it take to make lasting, positive changes in the way you think?

In order to incorporate the various standards and elements more effectively in the way I think, it would take a constant effort to always be cognizant of the various tools for critical thinking. This would entail a constant stream of self-reflection and thought into all the various claims in order to find the best answer. By thinking effectively, it helps to dive deep into understanding fundamental and powerful concepts in different disciplines. This kind of insight can only be achieved by fully understanding the material on a fundamental level and critically assessing the information to gain insight to the ‘bigger picture.’ This constant awareness in refining my thought process will eventually become second nature and lasting in the way that I think. Thus, the more I practice critical thinking the better I will become at being a critical thinker.

On that note, I hope that you all will keep on aiming to use critical thinking techniques and apply them to questions and problems that are pertinent in your life. In this day and age with a plethora of information available, from fake news to breakthrough studies and news stories, it is important to not take things as they are and to reflect and assess them for the truths that they represent!

Take care and see you here next week! Keep on thinking on!! 💪

References

Harris, W. (2017). How the scientific method works. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method6.htm

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: Critical thinking across the curriculum (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

A500.4.3.RB - Ballet Slippers or Adorable?

Welcome back! 😊 This week I will analyze and reflect on the lecture entitled 'The Art of Choosing' by Dr. Sheena Iyengar.

In this lecture, Dr. Iyengar (2010) gives three assumptions that most Americans typically agree with in regards to choice:

1. Make your own choices.
2. More options leads to better choices.
3. Never say no to choice.

Throughout the presentation, Dr. Iyengar gives examples as evidence on how Americans perceive choice as compared to other nations. She starts out with a story of her trip to Japan when she asks for some sugar with her green tea. From the waiter's perspective, sugar is inappropriate to add to green tea and kindly rejects the customer's request. This is because it is inappropriate in accordance to their cultural standards to add sugar into green tea. In the American ideal, requests are obliged when they are a paying customer with a reasonable request, but in Japan, it was their duty to protect was was culturally appropriate.

In a more controlled study, Dr. Iyengar found that Anglo-American kids did better when they made their own choices and that first-generation Asian-American kids did better when the choice was made by a respected figure such as their parents. In this concept of choice, success was connected in a collective sense for the first-generation Asian-American kids rather than an individual motivating factor as for the Anglo-American kids.

This relates to the first assumption given by Dr. Iyengar that finds choice can be perceived from either an individual or collective point of view. When a decision is seen as clearly divided from others, the responsibility is seen as personal, but if it is seen as associated with other individuals then the success is driven from a collective act. This difference in how choice is viewed changes the weight of the responsibility.

Sometimes choices are seen as the individual being responsible and other choices as being responsible as a group. In the American ideal, choice is seen as a private and self-defining act that has a lower focus on interdependence. Thus, the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibilities and that factor alone helps to motivate to success. This view on choice may help drive some to be successful, but not everyone thrives on this pressure alone as shown in this study. Sometimes having the external drive to succeed is based on interdependence and a collective goal.

In the second assumption, having more choices should lead to better choices depending on how it is looked at. Dr. Iyengar found from personal communications in post-communist countries that some choices are grouped together because they are seen as trivial. For example, in America we see different soda brands (e.g. Coke-a-Cola, Pepsi, Sprite) as different choices, but in some cultures saw it as a single choice of just soda. To an extent, these people viewed these choices as artificial and unnecessary from a cultural standpoint.

By having an excessive amount of options can lead to too much information for one to sort through that can lead to confusion or frustration from the overwhelming variety. Dr. Iyengar points out that too much choice can ironically create limitations for those who are not prepared and can lead to poorer decisions.

Lastly, the third assumption is to never say no to choice. From the American ideal, individual choice is prized even when confronted with authority figures. Dr. Iyengar explains the results on how parents dealt with grief after making a life or death decision for their new born with a debilitating condition. In America, the final choice was the parents to make and in France, it was up to the doctors. A year later, coping with the event differed in that Americans were more negative in their emotions and the French were less so. From this perspective, the responsibility shifted from being individualized and deeply personal to a group decision from an authority figure in coping with the decision.

Overall, Dr. Iyengar provides thought-provoking points in thinking about choices in her lecture. She shows how the concept of choice can be viewed differently from a cultural standpoint as either a positive or a negative. Ultimately, Dr. Iyengar shows these three assumptions found prominently in American culture and contrasts it with other narratives from around the world.

Do you agree with Dr. Iyengar?
From the three assumptions that Dr. Iyengar defines as being the prominent features of American culture, I find that I agree with them to an extent. The success of America has been derived from the constitutional framework from our founding fathers. This country was built on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the freedoms that we have are preserved from the sacrifices of those who have served. The availability of choice is seen as an essential pillar for freedom in America. While it may have its downsides as Dr. Iyengar shows in her various examples, the positive outcomes outweighs the downsides. The freedom of choice allows an investment in the personal responsibility of its citizens that can be used to navigate our stories based on the hand that we are dealt.

The first assumption that we make our own choice does come at a price. We are able to choose and make our own decisions that can lead to our own successes or failures. We can speak our minds freely, but sometimes that comes with opinions that may differ from person to person. On a larger scale, there will be conversations filled with disagreements, but the ability to work through things one step at a time. It is part of our first amendment right that says: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances' (Cornell Law School, 2017). We are able to question and dispute about nearly anything and make our voices heard. While there will be a lot of calamity at times, it is the sound of democracy at work. All the competing ideas and values may seem different on the surface, but are all part of the fabric of America.

In the second assumption, there can be a point where there can be too many choices that it ends up being trivial and superficial. However, with a free market, the less popular choices will eventually fade out of business due to competition. That is what is supposed to happen in a theoretical sense. However, sometimes shady practices to cut down cost can give a sketchy product that may appear to be wonderful. With the freedoms that we have, we can dispute these bad practices and bring them to light. It may not be immediate, but as the information grows and people become more informed these companies will be brought to justice. It can cause companies to become more transparent in their practices which is better for all of us as a whole.

Lastly, the third assumption is to never say no to choice. There are some difficult choices to be made and sometimes we want to defer them to experts or other people instead. The best that can be done is to hear the information, ask questions, and to let it sink in until it we can make the decision ourselves. It is an incredibly great responsibility of choice and having that allows us to to make impactful decisions. These decisions can shape our future for better or worse. The opportunity to be able to make choices like this is a blessing and curse because of the outcome that can follow. As long as we have our freedoms in the ability to ask, search, and understand, we would not want it any other way.

What is the implication of her comments on leadership?
In terms of leadership, the concept of choice and how it is applied can be viewed through action research. According to McNiff (2002), action research is the approach that encourages the person to be in control of their own life through self-reflection and self-evaluation. An action plan for action research includes:

1. Review current practice.
2. Identify aspect to investigate.
3. Imagine a way forward.
4. Try it out.
5. Monitor what happens.
6. Review and evaluate.

In a sense, the process and results of action research are the choices and decisions that we make to improve our own self and environment. From a leadership perspective, it is important to know how the decisions we make can influence policies and people in a short and long term way. The ability to self-reflect critically and allow vulnerability is important when embarking on action research because it grounds us (Bell, 1998). Action research allows us to take knowledge and advice, distill it to down to pertinent information, and then applied to our own situation at a personal and professional level. Dr. Iyengar's lecture shows that it is important to understand both the good and the bad with everything even as something as embedded in our culture as the freedom of choice.

Again, thank you for taking the time to read my blog! See you next week, but ultimately the choice is yours. 😉

References

Bell, Simon. (1998, April). Self-reflection and vulnerability in action research: Bringing forth new worlds in our learning. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(2), 179-190

Cornell Law School. (2017). U.S. constitution: First amendment. Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute. Retrieved on October 4, 2017 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Iyengar, S. (2010, July 26). The art of choosing [Video File]. TED Conferences, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing

McNiff, J. (2002). Action research for professional development: Concise advise for new action. Retrieved October 3, 2017 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/ar-booklet.asp

A500.3.3.RB - Organizational Leadership as a System

Hello and welcome back to my blog! This week I will be reflecting on organizational leadership. I will attempt to evaluate this discipline through a 'system of thinking' compared to a 'body of information.' Hopefully, you'll gain some good insight afterwards. Ready to read my third post? 😁

Think about the distinction between seeing the discipline of organizational leadership as a 'system of thinking' versus seeing organizational leadership as a 'body of information.' What would you say are the key differences between the two?

According to Business Dictionary (2017), the term 'organizational leadership' is defined as 'management staff that typically provides inspiration, objectives, operational oversight, and other administrative services to a business.' This definition signifies that this particular component is in upper management. These people are involved with making strategic decisions based on the mission and vision of the organization to be disseminated to the employees. This basis in understanding organizational leadership will lay the foundation for this reflection.

Viewing organizational leadership as a 'body of information' can be compared to the 'textbook description' or 'best practices' that are derived from various disciplines such as business/management, psychology, or other fields. They are hypotheses or theories in leadership that are meant to be applied and can be based on case studies or some form of experimentation. Thus, it can be more abstract and may work in theory, but can be slightly different when applied to a real-world situation. The concepts can be good and lay a decent foundation of tools to be used.

For example, a prominent management professor, Dr. Douglas McGregor (from the MIT Sloan School of Management), developed some theories in management known as 'Theory X and Y.' This concept stems from a distinction in management style as being either authoritarian (Theory X) or participative (Theory Y) (Hindle, 2008). Theory X emphasizes productivity whereas Theory Y emphasizes commitment. In terms of motivation for employees, Theory X says there is a constant push from management to employees to do work. In Theory Y, the work itself is self-driven by the employee on their own accord. A reason for doing so is that it fulfills a higher level of intrinsic reward and satisfaction. Compared to Theory X, there is a lower level of achievement which gives lesser motivation. When this is applied to organizational leadership as a 'body of information,' it provides a general method to be applied and answers the possibly 'why.' In this example, that can be linked to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Photo: Diagram example of the management theory developed by Douglas McGregor known as 'Theory X and Theory Y' (Chapman, 2002).

When organizational leadership is analyzed as a 'system of thinking,' it is akin to a trouble-shooting methodology to figure out issues and problems that may arise or proactively improving the organization for the better in real-time. This is a more practical approach for the type of business in real-world applications. It takes key points from the 'body of information' in organizational management and applies it. Organizational leadership through a 'system of thinking' assesses the problem critically and looks at solving it in the best way possible by using these concepts. Some issues needing to be resolved may not have been encountered before and there may not be a case study to refer to. Therefore, a 'system of thinking' can help to resolve issues that are new or not well documented in the 'body of information' for organizational leadership. Thus, according to Nosich (2012, p. 94), fields like these are dynamic by ever changing, growing, and evolving based on information.

For example, the company TDK Technology (2017) uses the concept of organizational leadership and applies it in their company to best meet their needs. They select key points in this discipline that are then taught to their employees so that they have a better understanding of how the company is aiming to operate. This knowledge gives the supervisors and subordinates a basis to work on when dealing with issues. This company also has other forms of learning through 'Tech Talks' that furthers the employee's knowledge base. This method of communication works for this company and allows their employees to have the ability to work though issues through a 'system of thinking.' However, this may not work for all companies and other similar companies may approach organizational leadership in a different way.

The key differences between 'body of information' and 'system of thinking' for organizational leadership can come down to how it functions. Organizational leadership as a 'body of information' acts as knowledge to be learned in the discipline. When compared to a 'system of thinking' for organizational leadership, it acts as conceptual tools to be used and applied in various scenarios.

How will this understanding change the way you approach your course work?

Understanding the differences in the system of a discipline as either a 'body of knowledge' or a 'system of thinking' helps to realize between learning information and applying information. The body of knowledge of a field can be used to gain a fundamental understanding, but it is then synthesized and utilized in new cases through system of thinking. As a person becomes more proficient in a field, it can help lead to better critical thinking in order to test various truths in a field. Hence the reason why a Ph.D. is known as a 'Doctor of Philosophy' in a given discipline--they are able to push the boundaries and expand on the existing body of knowledge.

Personally for me, understanding this in the course work that I am taking now will alter how I interpret all information--within this class, my professional life, and personal life. The information in this class is valuable, but it has to be believed by me through critical thinking to accept it. In a sense, it is taking claims and even some 'facts' with a skeptical eye to find that 'truth' to believe. This may vary from a theoretical to a practical level, but it always reflective and aims to find the best answer that I am willing to stand behind.

On that note, even with these blog reflections, my opinions and thinking may change as I understand the concept of critical thinking better. Nonetheless, hope you enjoyed reading and seeing my progress as I continue to evaluate leadership! Until next time. 😎

References

Business Dictionary. (2017). Organizational leadership. WebFinance Inc. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organizational-leadership.html

Chapman, A. (2002). Douglas McGregor's XY-Theory. Business Balls. Retrieved from https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mcgregorxytheorydiagram-111024204119-phpapp01/95/x-y-theory-diagram-1-728.jpg?cb=1319488956

Hindle, T. (2008, October 6). Theories x and y. The Economist Newspaper Limited. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/12370445

Nosich, G. M. (2012). Learning to think things through: Critical thinking across the curriculum (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

TDK Technologies. (2017). Key components of organizational leadership. TDK Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.tdktech.com/tech-talks/key-components-of-organizational-leadership