Determining_Your_Perfect_Position_Paper

Determining Your Perfect Position Paper Organizational Leadership - LDR/531 Isaac K. Oduro University of Phoenix Abstract As a valued, veteran employee of Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc., I am presented with the unique opportunity of determining the position that best suits me. Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. is undergoing an expansion and restructuring program. This paper therefore seeks to identify the strengths and weaknesses of my leadership style by applying what was learned about myself through self-assessments. The paper also compares and contrasts leadership theories in the textbooks to gain understanding of relevant theories to my leadership approach. A description of my leadership style is also made as well as jobs in Barrick Goldstrike that would fit with that style. It has been revealed through the assessment that I have excellent leadership skills that will be relevant in many sections of the mine. A project manager in the projects division will fit with my style of leadership. Barrick Goldstrike Mine Inc. is a gold mining company in Nevada producing about one million ounces of gold annually. There exist several job positions in Barrick Goldstrike that require people with excellent leadership skills to fill in its expansion and restructuring program. Among these jobs are general manager, project manager, mining manager, technical services manager among others. Leadership Style The self-assessment on finding one's leadership style, tapped the degree to which one is task or people-oriented. Task-orientation is concerned with getting the job done, whereas people-orientation focuses on group interactions and the needs of individual members. For task-orientation, high is a score above 10 and a low is below 10. For people-orientation, high is a score above seven and a low is below seven. My score for concern for people was eight, whiles the score for concern for task was 17. This indicates high scores for both task and people-orientations, implying that I am both task and people-oriented. I can balance my task and people-orientation to various situations. Charismatic Leadership Charismatic leaders are those whom followers perceive as possessing heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities. They tend to have high self-confidence and strong convictions about their beliefs. The score for the charismatic assessment ranges from one to 20. On management of attention, My score was 20. This implies that I pay close attention to people with whom I communicate. I have clear ideas about the relative importance of priorities. On management of meaning, I scored 20. This implies that I am effective at getting my meaning across. I can communicate clearly and be in touch with how others feel. I communicate feelings as well as ideas. My score on management of trust was 20. I am trustworthy and can be relied on to follow through on commitments. I rarely change once I have taken a clear position and I always let others know where I stand. I am therefore perceived as willing to follow on promises and take clear position on issues. On management of self, I scored 20. I care about other people and have a great deal of self-respect. I focus on strengths, of myself and others, and seem to know just how I "fit" into a group. I am very much concerned about the welfare of others, their feelings, and my own self regard. I scored 16 in risk management. I do not put excessive energy into avoiding failure and enjoy taking carefully calculated risks. I seem most alive when deeply involved in some project, and learn from mistakes and do not treat errors as disasters, but as learning. This implies that I am willing to take risks for those things I believe in and I am willing to accept failures in pursuit of my goals. On management of feelings, I scored 20. I make the work of others more meaningful and help others feel more competent in what they do. I show others that they are all part of the same group and I am fun to be around. This indicates that I can tap into the feelings of others and make their work more meaningful for them. Trusting Others The assessment was designed to test one's faith in people. The scores ranges from one (high faith) to five (low faith). Either extreme has its negatives. Those with low scores may be naive and susceptible to being taken advantage of. Those with high scores are likely to have trouble trusting others, working on teams, or acting as an empowering leader. My score was 2. This implies that my faith in people is high and can therefore act as an empowering leader. Trustworthiness This assessment provides insights into how one is perceived by others. Effective leaders have built a trusting relationship between themselves and those they seek to lead. The score range between nine and 63. The higher the score, the more one is perceived as a person who can be trusted. I scored 63 implying that I am perceived by others as trustworthy. Disciplining Others This assessment gives insights into how effective one might be in practicing discipline in the workplace. The score ranges from eight to 24. A score of 22 or higher indicates excellent skills at disciplining. I scored 22 implying that I am good at disciplining others in the workplace. Building and Leading a Team This assessment assesses team development behaviors in five areas: diagnosing team development, managing the forming stage, managing the conforming stage, managing the forming stage, and managing the performing stage. The score ranges between 18 and 108. My score of 108 indicates my ability to lead teams in achieving desired goals. The Fiedler contingency model proposes that effective group performance depends on the proper match between the leader’s style and the degree to which the situation gives control to the leader. Fiedler assumes that an individual’s leadership style is fixed. As we’ll show, this is important because it means that if a situation requires a task-oriented leader and the person in that leadership position is relationship-oriented, either the situation has to be modified or the leader replaced if optimal effectiveness is to be achieved. Fiedler states the better the leader-member relations, the more highly structured the job, and the stronger the position power, the more control the leader has. Based on Fiedler's model a leader can be changed to fit the situation. For example, in a baseball game, a manager can put a right-handed pitcher or a left-handed pitcher into the game, depending on the situational characteristics of the hitter. So, for example, if a group situation rates as highly unfavorable but is currently led by a relationship-oriented manager, the group’s performance could be improved by replacing that manager with one who is task-oriented. The second alternative would be to change the situation to fit the leader. That could be done by restructuring tasks or increasing or decreasing the power that the leader has to control factors such as salary increases, promotions, promotions, and disciplinary actions. The leadership model developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard which is a situational leadership is a contingency theory that focuses on the followers. Successful leadership is achieved by selecting the right leadership style, which Hersey and Blanchard argue is contingent on the level of the followers’ readiness. Leadership plays a central part in understanding group behavior, for it’s the leader who usually provides the direction toward goal attainment. Therefore, a more accurate predictive capability should be valuable in improving group performance. The early search for a set of universal leadership traits failed. However, recent efforts using the Big Five personality framework has generated much more encouraging results. Specifically, the traits of extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience show strong and consistent relationships to leadership. The behavioral approach’s major contribution was narrowing leadership into task-oriented and people-oriented styles. A major breakthrough in understanding of leadership came when the need to develop contingency theories that included situational factors was recognized. At present, the evidence indicates that relevant situational variables would include the task structure of the job; level of situational stress; level of group support; the leader’s intelligence and experience; and follower characteristics such as personality, experience, ability, and motivation. The leadership style described above indicates that I am in the position to work in most departments as the manager. The most appropriate job that will fit with my style would be in the project management division as the project manager. References University of Phoenix. (2010). Week four overview, Organizational Leadership. Retrieved March 22, 2010, from University of Phoenix, Week Four, LDR/531 – Organizational Leadership Web Site.