Analysis of Leadership Dynamics of my NVP Group

Leadership styles influence the outcome of teams (groups), and thus affect the performance of the organization. For instance, effective leadership contributes to team aspects such as commitment and cohesiveness, hence contributing to the team’s performance (Stashevsky & Koslowsky, 2006). The current emphasis of teams as an effective way of organizing an entity to achieve success has buttressed the need for assessing effective leadership in teams. However, perspectives about how leadership develops vary widely. While some argue leadership to constitute an innate aspect as exemplified by personality traits, others consider leadership as qualities that individuals develop over time (Mostovicz, Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2009). Variances in leadership styles could however arise with respect to individual or cultures, necessitating self-assessment for one to identify ones core values that would better ones ability to lead others. The subject here is thus to assess the leadership dynamics within my NVP group and highlight steps that would better such dynamics.

My group had variances in various leadership inventory tests conducted. Firstly, the four members’ personality types differed as evaluated via Briggs-Meyers Personality Type indicator. My evaluation, for instance, indicated that I am an ISTJ, thus having a preference for structure and orderliness. Such was confirmed by my rating for intolerance for ambiguity. With a rating (37) relatively lower than some of the group members, my preference for an environment where laws and traditions govern society were reinforced. Other leadership attributes I perceive to be central to achieve effectiveness were reinforced by other tests. As a believer in teamwork, my team intelligence indicator was above average and my most preferred method of conflict resolution was collaborating. Such indications reflected my perspective that a team comprises a wide array of ideas and talents for the betterment of the team, the successful utilization of which requires coordination towards a common goal. Further, my perspective that individuals in my charge are capable of performing tasks adequately, when such tasks are clearly defined, was highlighted in my high rating (78) in empowerment at work.

Other members’ personality profiles were different. For instance, one member (Joy) has INTJ personality, indicating her preference for systems and organization. Accordingly, her intolerance of ambiguity rating (36), the least in the group, fits to her personality that envisages an environment where systems of doing activities are reveled. Additionally, she often exhibited a competing approach to conflict resolution. Such a method predicts a leadership style where one believes ones way to offer the only possible solution thus may not provide long-lasting solutions to conflicts; the other party may eventually feel cheated to agree to the leader’s way (Ma, 2007). Such indications of conflict resolution styles however did not predict the member’s belief in teamwork since the rating on team intelligence was relatively high (44) as compared to my rating. Additionally, the member’s rating on empowerment at work, which indicated a preference for such empowerment, was not in line with expectations predicted by a competing conflict-resolution style.

A third member of the group (DeShawn) exhibited ENFP personality profile. Such indicates the abhorrence of routine tasks and lack of emphasis on establishing control on other members. An important aspect with regard to individuals bearing this personality is the ability to motivate others with their great emphasis on inter-personal relationships. Accordingly, this member’s team intelligence rating was the highest in the group, indicating the brief in teamwork. Similarly, his rating on empowerment at work also was relatively high, indicating the member’s belief in the capability of the members to perform assigned tasks. Thus, the member also prefers collaborating to solve conflicts, thus indicating his capacity to provide a win-win situation incase of negotiations (Ma, 2007). His high rating on intolerance of ambiguity (41) relative to the other members indicates the member’s preference for environments where rules and schedules are not emphasized.

The fourth member of the group (Liz) has ESTP personality as evaluated via Briggs-Meyers Personality Type indicator. Such a personality indicates the member prefers spontaneity, and risk-taking, thus abhors environments where guidelines are predominant. Converse to Joy’s competing approach to conflict resolution, this member’s approach was accommodating. The effect of the two members’ leadership approaches with regard to conflict resolution would thus be in opposite direction. For this member, such effect would be allowing too much ground to the negotiating party, thus may eventually lead to unfavorable outcomes (Ma, 2007). The member’s low rating (36) among the group with regard to team intelligence reinforces the personality indicated. Although the member may be good in starting projects necessitating involvement of all team members, she could get bored as the project progresses and leave her responsibilities to other group members.

The leadership dynamics highlighted in our group members present various challenges. Primarily these relate to developing an environment where a compromise may be achieved regarding preferences of various members. For instance, challenges arise with regard to preference or abhorrence of a controlled environment where systems, rules and laws act as tools to guide performance. Since group is split between preference (ISTJ and INTJ) and abhorrence (ENFP and ESTP) of such guided environment, establishing commitment to the group’s goals may prove a difficult feat. These differences are also evident in conflict management styles, where opposing styles of the second member (Joy; competing) and the fourth member (Liz; accommodating) could lead to a zero-sum game – the overall objective for the team may not be realized (Ma, 2007).  Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the team would better the formulation of steps that enhances the group dynamics to ensure the group meets its objective.

The group’s strengths include shared perspectives in various leadership dynamics evaluated.  Specifically the rating for team intelligence and intolerance for ambiguity are not wide ranging. Such provides a basis through which a common base such as setting up a schedule to guide the team’s activities may be agreed upon. For instance, with team intelligence rating being favorable for all members, rallying them to share the vision embedded in the purpose of the team is easier. Weaknesses however arise with differences, at times in opposite extremes, with regard to conflict resolution. In this respect, issues that may come up as the program progresses may prove challenging thus presenting a challenge to timely completion of the program.

Enhancing leadership dynamics in my group necessitates various interventions. Firstly, knowledge of leadership style of individual members would help in motivating them to contribute to the team’s activities. For instance, such knowledge helps to individualize role-assignment. Secondly, rewards may motivate team members to remain committed to team objectives. Such rewards include linking marks awarded to participation, which could be achieved by allowing all members to rate participation of each member. Through this approach, members would remain committed to the team’s activities, to get a positive rating. Thirdly, implementing a rotational schedule to lead the team’s activities would ensure that each member has a chance to practice ones leadership skills. Through such a way, the members will keep appraised of the team’s progress to avoid dismal performance when their turn to lead the team’s activities arrives.

References

Stashevsky, S. & Koslowsky, M. (2006). Leadership, team cohesiveness and team performance. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 63-74, doi: 10.1108/01437720610652844

Mostovicz, E. I., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. P. (2009). A dynamic theory of leadership development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(6), 563-576. Doi: 10.1108/01437730910981935.

Ma, Z. (2007). Chinese conflict management styles and negotiation behaviours: an empirical test. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 7(1), 101-119. doi: 10.1177/1470595807075177

find the cost of your paper