Critical Reflection

Context

The scenario explored within this reflection is a 20-minute in-tray exercise at a graduate assessment centre. My team (as opposed to a group, discussed later) of 4, comprised of strangers, were presented the fictional scenario of 20 characters stuck in a burning building. The team had to organise their evacuation, justifying decisions to assessors. There was no official correct answer, but skills were being monitored, such as team working and leadership.

Assessment centres are used as a fair and accurate method of selection (University of Oxford, 2022); this assessment centre was geared towards highlighting leadership tendencies, reflective of desires for leadership capabilities (Rosenberg et al., 2012, Kadhila et al., 2018).

As in-tray exercises measure a broad range of competencies, their use for selection is considered advantageous (Irawati, 2017); research on assessment centres suggests strong predictive validity (Arthur et al., 2003). However, impression management is often used by interviewees, particularly where desirable traits are firstly communicated by the interviewer (Weiss and Feldman, 2006), which in this instance, they were. This aligns with my past experiences of in-tray exercises; those who demonstrate relevant traits are progressed.

The use of this scenario to discuss leadership theory is therefore justifiable in that instances of leadership are present, qualitatively measurable and reflective of future performance. However, due to impression management, the validity of behavior is questionable and sometimes unmeasurable, potentially leading to false assumptions regarding authenticity.

Individual Role and Leadership

Initially, people were reluctant to guide discussion and our task lacked direction. This is typical of the norming stages of team development (Tuckman, 1965), particularly in unfamiliar teams. To mitigate this, I suggested we introduce a leadership role, satisfying elements of “team need”, attempting to foster team effectiveness (Morgeson et al., 2010, 8). Leadership that satisfies team need is harmonious with functional leadership, where ‘[you] do, or get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for group needs’ (McGrath, 1962, 5). I was elected.

By virtue of having known each other for only a short amount of time, trait theory may have helped to rationalise the team’s election. I exhibited behaviours characteristic of Erikson’s (2019) red behaviour type, meaning I am extroverted and task-orientated. Whilst some author’s findings on effective and valuable leadership traits (Mann, 1959; Lord et al., 1986) align with aspects of the red behavior type, Stogdill’s (1948) early research on the theory suggests trait relevance is situational, though in this scenario, my traits were arguably associated with effectiveness. As Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) would suggest, this initial relationally-based process combined with how team members interpreted me formed followership.

My rudimentary knowledge of leadership at the time suggested many employers seek what I now know to be charismatic and transformational leaders, two leadership styles which are similar, if not synonymous (Northouse, 2021, 188). Upon reflection, this can be justified in that current texts significantly focus on the “new leadership” paradigm (Bryman, 1992), incorporating elements such as charismatic and transformational leadership (Lowe and Gardner, 2001; Antonakis, 2012; Dinh et al., 2014).  House (1976) suggests a number of personality characteristics typical of charismatic leadership such as self-confidence, dominance and desire to influence. I molded myself around these characteristics, which felt natural, perhaps in part due to my red personality type. Undertaking impression management like this is congruent with charismatic leadership (Jung and Sosik, 2006); not only is impression management influential (Leary and Kowalski, 1990, 34) for followers, the conscious use of symbolic interactionism (Goffman, 1959) arguably shows an acute awareness of self, again associated with charismatic leadership (Jung and Sosik, 2006).

My actions as a charismatic leader were effective as the team began to look to me for advice, indicating trust and confidence, two of the effects House (1976) identified on followers. Furthermore, millennials are more likely to value leadership recognition (Ng et al., 2010) and potentially the traits associated with effective leadership. Having a pre-existing understanding of the company’s culture as well as knowing the leadership traits the company valued (a result of having volunteered for them as a Project Manager), my leadership and presentation of self was especially effective. Aligning traits with my followers’ perceptions of effectiveness, at least situationally, has significant benefits (Dinh and Lord, 2012) increasing leadership strength.

Interestingly, I was particularly self-aware that this alignment was not necessarily authentic, it was perhaps an exaggerated performance of self. Contextually though, impression management may have indicated effectiveness (Gilmore and Ferris, 1989). Nevertheless, I believe this alignment to be an effect of the assessment context; I did not feel the need to align traits whilst volunteering. There are therefore clear issues with authenticity in interview settings (Nunkoosing, 2005); effectiveness in assessment centres may differ to the workplace, and whilst impression management may indicate effectiveness (Gilmore and Ferris, 1989), it relies on the ability of a leader to manage their front, which if done poorly, will reduce leadership credibility.

Twenge and Campbell (2008) argue employees, particularly millennials, are more likely to have self-fulfilling desires and are less likely to be motivated by the ‘emotional and attributional appeals of charismatic leaders’ (Anderson et al., 2017, 248). Perhaps followers were conducting impression management and avoiding conflict to appease assessors, just as I aligned my traits to appear more effective. In this instance, to better understand when this might have taken place, I could have looked for signs consistent with authentic followership (de Zilwa, 2014), confronting traditional views that leadership is a one-way process. Alternatively, in typical workplace environments, I may ask for 360 feedback, creating space for authentic responses. Whilst there is evidence 360 feedback can be used maliciously (Campbell and Lee, 1988) and in similar self-serving ways common in young millennials, providing space for authenticity can create effectiveness in both leader and follower (de Zilwa, 2014).

Despite having been effective on this occasion by working well, unanimously coming to a conclusion in good time and achieving our goal, charismatic leadership relies on the relations between leaders and followers (Fragouli, 2018). In instances where there may be another dominant figure, or particularly where there could be withdrawn (Zaleznik, 1965) or isolate (Kellerman, 2008) team members, I anticipate I could become frustrated thus creating conflict.  Consequently, my effectiveness as a leader may begin to diminish as relational ties with followers break-down, losing follower trust, affection and acceptance (House, 1976). In these instances, social judgement skills, the capacity to understand people and social systems (Zaccaro et al., 2000, 46), become necessary, key for effective performance (Mumford et al., 2012). There is therefore a need to modify my leadership style dependent on context.

My philosophy with regards to assessment centres is that I must try to create collective achievement. This is more indicative of transformational management, whereby intrinsic motivation and follower development is stressed (Bass and Riggio, 2006), fitting the current desires of workforces (Northouse, 2021, 185), exemplifying its effectiveness. My leadership aligned with Notgrass’ (2014) findings, where it was noted that employees prefer leaders that encourage fair participation, value team contributions and recognise accomplishments. Personally, having worked professionally in a project environment for 2 years, I find Notgrass’ (2014) findings very applicable; my motivation is very much dependent on the outlined three factors.

Using more classical approaches, I would classify my leadership as having high people and task concern, therefore attaining “team manager” status, the most effective leadership style (Blake and Mouton, 1964). However, whilst this behaviour is ideal in an assessment centre, it may be unrealistic in the workplace (Garg and Jain, 2013). Gill (2009) compares public versus private sector leadership and how they differ, for instance, charismatic leadership in the private sector is more likely to yield stronger operational performance (Howell & Avolio, 1993), in part explained by Pawar and Eastman (1997) (cited in Garg and Jain, 2013). This again highlights the situational nature of leadership, evidencing many elements associated with effective leadership can be transient; leaders must be adaptive and respond appropriately.

Narcissism is too a personality characteristic related to charismatic leadership (House and Howell, 1992) and millennials (Twenge and Foster, 2010). Narcissism has been a challenge of mine in the past. Within this context, I had to consciously ensure narcissistic tendencies were tempered; I had been to assessment centres before, having completed similar tasks, and have always scored exceptionally. Whilst there is literature to suggest ‘a certain dose of narcissism is necessary to function effectively’ (Kets de Vries and Miller, 1985, 588), too much can eventually have detrimental consequences for followers (Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006). This could have negated my effectiveness as a leader, negatively influencing assessors’ decisions. There is clearly a balance to be struck for charismatic leaders; Humphreys et al.’s (2010) framework provides helpful direction in navigating this course.

Team Dynamics

Throughout this critical reflection, I have exclusively referenced my task “colleagues” as collectively being a “team”. Huczynski and Buchanan’s (2017) descriptions of “teams” and “work groups” suggests teams are more collaborative with a greater focus on people orientation, therefore applicable to us as it is what the task required or is at least what the assessors likely wanted to see. Despite establishing a leader, contradictory to Huczynski and Buchanan’s (2017) idea of “team”, teams can have a single formal leader, though will benefit from shared leadership (Northouse, 2021, 463).

Whilst there are clear benefits to shared leadership (Morgeson et al., 2010; Bergman et al., 2012) that could increase effectiveness, I argue the constraints of the task/environment necessitated a singular leader. Discussed above, the team initially struggled from a lack of direction. However, particularly because of the time pressure and having no pre-existing relationship, arguably, without having introduced a leader who was able to encourage and guide the conversation along, it is ambiguous as to exactly how our team would have effectively developed over this short time, if at all. Rickards and Moger (2000) note this lack of explanation of how teams develop over time to be a fundamental limitation of Tuckman’s (1965) model. In fact, further models which may ordinarily prove useful such as Belbin’s (1993) Team Roles also present time-related concerns, situationally negating their effectiveness. Again, situationally, and to be effective/successful, this perhaps creates 2 key pressures.

Firstly, the leader must create a sense of urgency (Choi, 2006), be effective at influencing and have high competence and confidence, resulting in follower trust, acceptance and obedience, all signs typical of charismatic leadership (House, 1976). This ensures minimal conflict, enabling progression, though the leader must similarly exhibit confidence in followers (Choi, 2006).

Secondly, followers must avoid excessive conflict and be engaged in the task, conforming to follower types such as “conformists”, but ideally “pragmatists” due to their tendency to support the majority viewpoint but able to contribute effectively where necessary (Kelley, 1992). Critically however, followers may conduct impression management, particularly as assessors want to see signs of teamwork and adaptability as opposed to anything conflict related. Though not explicit to me, followers may have become “masochistic”, submitting but feeling discomfort in doing so; alternatively, it’s possible followers could have been “compulsive”, wanting to dominate but holding back (Zaleznick, 1965). This could potentially limit the degree by which authentic functioning is present (Kernis, 2003, 13); similarly, authentic followership may diminish, along with its benefits of increasing leadership and organisational effectiveness (de Zilwa, 2014). There is evidence to suggest authentic followership is at least somewhat intertwined with motivation (Leroy et al., 2014), so long term, it is perhaps not sustainable for followers to operate under such follower types. Exceptions to this may be where leaders are required to be more authoritarian for example, and therefore need followers to conform. Morally, I want my followers to be authentic as follower well-being is of great importance to me. Leaders must be conscious to this, particularly in specific settings such as assessment centres where followers may feel increased pressure. Data that supports this lacks empirical research though (Gardner et al., 2011), indicating a one-sided approach, with focus more on authentic leadership (Algera and Lips-Wiersma, 2012).

Practically, to progress through the stages of team development more effectively in less time-constrained settings, teams could undertake activities such as Belbin Questionnaires (1993), identifying strengths to drive progression. Alternatively, approaches such as the Six Thinking Hats can help teams break through the norm formation barrier (de Bono, 1985 cited in Rickards and Moger, 2000).

Conclusion

The experience of an assessment centre has provided a source for valuable reflection, indicating aspects of myself I was otherwise unaware of, allowing conscious and effective decisions in future bounded settings. In reviewing some of the available literature on the subject of leadership, it is clear what is considered to be “effective” is somewhat inconstant and is largely dependent on an infinitely large number of variables.

It has become evident that I possess a tendency to be highly extroverted and task focused. This aligns positively with charismatic and transformational leadership and has helped to rationalise the impression management I conduct. The context has also provided an insight into follower behaviour, and how as a leader, my approach should be adaptive, not just to followers, but to the wider context too.

On this occasion, I was offered the role, indicating assessors believed my leadership was effective, to which I would concur. However, appendix 1 contains areas for development, needed to improve my leadership capabilities.

References

Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 118-131.

Antonakis, J. (2012). Transformation and charismatic leadership. In D. V. Day & J. Antonakis (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2^nd ed., 256-288). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Arthur, W., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). Ameta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56, 125–154.

Bass, B., Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership (2^nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Belbin, R. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bergman, J., Rentsch, J., Small, E., Davenport, S., Bergman, S. (2012). The shared leadership process in decision-making teams. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1), 17-42.

Blake, R.; Mouton, J. (1964). The Managerial Grid: The Key to Leadership Excellence. Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organisations. London. UK: Sage.

Campbell, D. J., Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in perfor- mance evaluation: Development versus evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 13(2): 302-314.

Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13, 24-43.

de Bono, E. (1985). Six Thinking Hats. Penguin, London.

de Zilwa, D. (2014). A new conceptual framework for authentic followership. In L. Lapierre & M. Carsten (Eds.), Followership: What is it, and why do people follow? (47-72). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Dinh, J., Lord, R., Gardner, W., Meuser, J., Liden, R., Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.

Erikson, T. (2019). Surrounded by Idiots: The four types of human behavior and how to effectively communicate with each in business (and in life). New York: Penguin.

Fragouli, E. (2018). The dark-side of charisma and charismatic leadership. Business and Management Review, 9(4), 298-307.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literatureand research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 1120-1145.

Garg, S. and Jain, S. (2013). Mapping leadership styles of public and private sector leaders using Blake and Mouton leadership model. Drishtikon: A Management Journal, 4(1), 48.

Gill, R. (2009). Leadership in public services and the private sector: a comparison and the implications for handling crises and emergencies. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services.

Gilmore, D. C. and Ferris, G. R. (1989), ‘The Politics of the Employment Interview’, in R. W. Eder and G R. Ferris, eds., 1989, The Employment Interview: Theory, Research, Practice (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), 195-203.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

House, R. J., & Howell, J. M. (1992). Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 3(2), 81-108.

House, R.J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Working Paper Series, 76-06.

Howell, J. & Avolio, B. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: key predictors of consolidated business-unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (6), 891-902.

Huczynski, A.A., Buchanan, D.A. (2017) Organizational Behaviour, 9th Edition, Pearson.

Humphreys, J., Zhao, D., Ingram, K., Gladstone, J. and Basham, L., 2010. Situational narcissism and charismatic leadership: A conceptual framework. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 11(2), 118-136

Irawati, I., Runiawati, N. and Hermawati, R. (2017). November. Predicting Future Performance Through Selection Methods. In International Conference on Administrative Science (ICAS 2017) (112-115). Atlantis Press.

Jung, D., Sosik, J. (2006) Who are the spellbinders? Identifying personal attributes of charismatic leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 12, 12-27.

Kadhila, N., Shalyefu, R.K. and Shivoro, R.S. (2018). Perspectives on graduate employability attributes for management sciences graduates. South African Journal of Higher Education, 32(1), 216-232.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: how followers are creating change and changing leaders. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Kelley, R.E. (1992). The power of followership. New York, NY: Doubleday Business.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations perspective. Human Relations, 38(6), 583-601.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leary and Kowalski. (1990). Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin. 107 (1), 34.

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W.L. and Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of management, 41(6), 1677-1697.

Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., Alliger, G. M. (1986) A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity and generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410

Lowe, K.; Gardener, W. (2001). Then year of The Leadership Quarterly: Contributions and challenges for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 459-514.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.

McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development.

Morgeson, F., DeRue, D., Karam, E. (2010) Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5-39.

Mumford, M., Hester, K., Robledo, I., Peterson, D., Day, E., Hougen, D., Barrett, J. (2012). Mental model and creative problem-solving: The relationship of objective and subjective models attributes. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 311-330.

Ng, E. S.; Schweitzer, L., Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 281–292.

Northouse, P.G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.

Notgrass, D. (2014). The relationship between followers’ perceived quality of relationship and preferred leadership style. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(7), 605-621.

Nunkoosing, K. (2005). The problems with interviews. Qualitative health research, 15(5), 698-706.

Pawar, B. & Eastman, K.K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: a conceptual examination, Academy of Management Review, 22 (1), 80-109.

Rickards, T. and Moger, S. (2000). Creative leadership processes in project team development: An alternative to Tuckman’s stage model. British Journal of Management, 11(4): 273–283.

Rosenberg, S., Heimler, R. & Morote, E.-S. (2012). Basic employability skills: a triangular design approach. Education and Training, 54(1), 7-20.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Increases in positive self-views among high school students birth-cohort changes in anticipated performance, self-satisfaction, self-liking, and self-competence. Psychological Science, 19, 1082–1086.

Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010). Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982–2009. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 99–106.

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R.M., Lowe, K.B and Carsten, M.K. (2014) ‘Followership theory: A review and research agenda’, The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 1, 83-104

University of Oxford. (2022). Assessment Centres. Available: https://www.careers.ox.ac.uk/assessment-centres. Last accessed 23 April 2022.

Zaccaro, S., Mumford, M., Connelly, M., Mark, M. Gilbert, J. (2000). Assessment of leader problem-solving capabilities. The Leadership Quarterly. 11(1), 37-64.

Zaleznick, A. (1965). ‘The Dynamics of Subordinacy’, Harvard Business Review, May-June.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Personal Development Plan