“Earn your success based on service to others, not at the expense of others.”  – H. Jackson Brown Jr. While the very name of this model of leadership is often listed as one of the cons of the theory, servant leadership has a very noble cause. We can define servant leadership as leadership where “leaders place the good of the followers over their own self-interests and emphasize follower development.” (Northouse, 2016) Over the last ten years, there has been considerable research done on this model, even though it has been around since the late seventies. A survey that I would like to go further on is one that was conducted by Dirk van Dierendonck and Inge Nuijten in 2011.

In their 2011 study “The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure” van Dierendonck and Nuijten set out to “describe the development of a valid and reliable instrument that measures servant leadership in all its complexity, that is behaviorally oriented, focuses on the role of the leader in the relationship with followers, and which is easy to use.” (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) In his 1977 study, Greenleaf, who is thought to be the first scholar to explore the idea of servant leadership focused on how leaders could achieve greater success if they put the needs of their followers first. “According to Greenleaf ‘going beyond one’s self-interest’ was the core characteristic of servant leadership.” (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) Where Greenleaf’s study falls short is that it doesn’t tell us precisely how measure whether a leader has all of the characteristics to be able to successfully do that.

To that end, van Dierendock and Nuijten developed a model that focuses on eight characteristics thought to be key in the success of servant leaders.

Eight Characteristics of Servant Leadership

(Northouse, 2015)

Some of the characteristics that are highlighted by van Dierendonck and Nuijten are similar to another type of leadership – authentic leadership. Authentic leadership is defined as “a pattern of leader behavior that develops from and is grounded in the leader’s positive psychological qualities and strong ethics.” (Northouse, 2016) Both leadership models prioritize self-awareness, empathy, listening, service before self, and foresight. The main difference between the two types of leadership is that authentic leadership is focused on “being real”. Authentic leadership doesn’t have a set of characteristics associated with it because it states that the leaders personality and experiences will dictate how the leader leads. Servant leadership on the other hand, does provide the set of eight characteristics that leaders can focus on in order to be servant leaders.

In today’s world the idea of servant leadership can be met with dismissal, as many believe that it is a leaders job to lead and a followers job to be of service. The title “servant leadership” can be a bit of a misnomer, as the model does put focus on traits like accountability and stewardship. Accountability “… ensures that people know what is expected of them, which is beneficial for both employees and the organization. It is a powerful tool to show confidence in one’s followers; it provides boundaries within which one is free to achieve one’s goals.” (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) Stewardship says that “leaders should not only act as caretakers, but also act as role models. By setting the right example, leaders can stimulate others to act in the common interest.” (van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) Regardless of what the model is named, it is not about bowing down to the wants of others at any cost. Through accountability and stewardship, leaders can inspire teams to want to do more and go further than they would have otherwise.

One of the other criticisms of servant leadership is that “while advocating for an altruistic approach to leadership is commendable, it has a utopian ring because it conflicts with individual autonomy and other principles of leadership such as directing, concern for production, goal-setting, and creating a vision.” (Northouse, 2016) The question must be asked “is the organization benefitting from this approach?” The truth is that not all may. If the organization is in need of a quick turnaround or is based in a part of the world that doesn’t associate “good leadership” with having strong concern for the development of the follower, this style of leadership may not be right for the company.

In their study van Dierendonck and Nuijten do make a nod toward addressing the criticism of the approach. They state that the research suggests “that the primary aspects of servant leader behavior are empowerment, accountability, standing back, humility, and stewardship, leaving authenticity, courage, and forgiveness as secondary aspects.” In my analysis, I think that this means that it is key for a servant leader to be able to wield all of the traits at the right time and in the right place for the organization. If one is working to turnaround a failing company, perhaps they must lean on accountability and stewardship until certain goals are met. Perhaps if the company is struggling in an area of production, the leader must focus on humility and seek answers from those who are involved first hand.

While there are true concerns about how we measure and apply servant leadership in every day life, I think that van Dierendonck and Nuijten have created a strong set of characteristics for leaders to consider when pursuing a career of service to others. As they stated in their study “More and better insights grounded in empirically based findings are essential in order to alert organizations to the necessity of being open to the needs and wishes of employees, acknowledging their worth and achievements, but also of being stewards and making people feel responsible for their work.” (van Dierendonck and Nuijten, 2011) In order to practice servant leadership, we have to work to dismantle our beliefs around the hierarchy of leadership and be willing to do different for our teams every day.

References:

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.

van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. Journal of business and psychology, 26(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1

In today’s world most leaders work on a team. The teams can be large or small, but rarely is there an organization that doesn’t rely on some type of team to support the leader’s greater vision for the company. In our lesson, we learned that a team is a specialized type of group that relies on each other for success, as “team members cannot function without interacting with each other while working on the task.” (PSUWC, 2020, L9) In 2020, we find ourselves in unprecedented times as we face the global pandemic, COVID-19. This health crisis has forced teams into their homes and necessitated working remotely in order to ensure everyones safety. I am interested in exploring how working remotely affects the Hill Model for Team Leadership and where leaders need too think differently when applying this model to how they are leading teams that are remote during a time of great uncertainty in the world.

In order to further explore this topic, we must first understand what The Hill Model for Team Leadership is. This model “is based on the functional leadership claim that the leader’s job is to monitor the team and then take whatever action necessary to ensure team effectiveness.” (Northouse, 2016 p.366) The model itself can be used as a tool to not only understand the complexities of team leadership, but also to understand the options on how to move forward with specific types of problems. The basis of the tool is the leaders “mental model”. The mental model is the leader’s “conception of what the team problem is and what solutions are possible in this context, given the environmental and organizational constraints and resources.” (Northouse, 2016 p. 366)

The Hill Model for Team Leadership

(Northouse, 2016 p. 367)

As the model shows, it is the leaders job to constantly monitor team performance and determine whether issues require action. As leaders assess the work of the team, they must determine whether the issue is task related, relational in nature, or an environment problem. Task and relational issues are considered internal issues, while environment is considered an external issue. An example of a task related problem may be lack of training. It would be up to the leader to determine what training would support the team, when to deploy it, and who needs it. An example of a relational issue would be conflict between two members of the team. The leader would have to exercise their skills in conflict management and help the team members work through their issues and find a way forward. An example of an environmental issue would be a lack of connection to others in the industry. It would be up to the leader to provide networking opportunities to the team, in order to extend their reach.

When in the role of the leader in this model, there is a substantial amount of communication necessary in order to understand the dynamic of the team and support accordingly. When we introduce the idea of working with a “geographically dispersed team”, things become more complex. As we learned in our lesson “Communication becomes especially important in virtual teams, as team leadership becomes even more complex in this environment.” (PSUWC, 2020, L9) In a situations where we know that communication and connection are key to the success of virtual work teams, the ability to connect is sometime diminished due to lack of face-to-face collaboration. As we consider the “geographically dispersed team” during the time of COVID-19, we can recognize that the ability to work remotely has allowed many people to retain their jobs, businesses to continue to function, and aspects of society to continue to operate. We also must realize that a number of the team members who are working from home are ill-equipped, unprepared, and lack practice in how to participate in a virtual team effectively.

This situation would call for the leader to action with in the Hill Model. A helpful tool for leaders to consider in this moment would be the Comparison of Theory and Research Criteria of Team Effectiveness:

(Northouse, 2016 p.369)

In this moment of high ambiguity with team members who may not be competent in the work of being a part of a virtual team, it will be important for leaders to focus on 3 of the characteristics of team excellence: first, a clear, elevating goal. “Team goals must be very clear so that one can tell whether the performance objective has been realized.” (Northouse, 2016 p.368) When working remotely and as part of a new team, it will be very important for leaders to clearly state what the object for the day, week, and month are. If this is done well, the team should be able to understand the progress the has been made towards the goal and what their specific contribution has been towards that progress. Second, leaders leading virtual teams will need to work hard to create a collaborative climate. In order to do this “we need to develop trusting relationships based on honesty, openness, consistency, and respect.” (Northouse, 2016) Creating a deep relationship in a remote environment can be tough, so leaders will need to rely on technology like video conferencing, Slack, and group chat to create conversation. They will need to build in touch points with all members of their team and create projects that force collaboration amongst all group members. Last, in this moment external support and recognition will be key. For team members newly working from home, it may look like ensuring that they have an ergonomic work station set up. It could look like providing IS&T support if the team needs help navigating new technology, or simply an end of day text saying thank you for all of the hard work.

As the situation with COVID-19 continues to evolve, all leaders will need to have great self-awareness around how they are showing up for their teams. Leaders can benefit from using the Hill Model to understand how to approach new problems as they arise and lead their teams through a time of crisis. Leaders will need to communicate more and help the team collaborate in new and innovative ways, as the teams are unable to come together in person. I found great value in this list from KornFerry about what traits leaders can show in times of high uncertainty and what they should do for their teams in these times. The changing landscape of work in this moment, presents a challenge, but by applying principles from our learning this week, we can find the best ways to support our teams.

(KornFerry, 2020)

References:

(2020, March 19). Retrieved March 23, 2020, from https://infokf.kornferry.com/REG_WBR-2020-03-17-Coronavirus-Webinar-Series-1_CHALL_GBL_GL_Other_MoFu_Leading-in-a-time-of-crisis-on-demand.html?utm_source=website&utm_medium=banner&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=20-03-covid&_ga=2.129658063.250521219.1584885888-1235934690.1584885888

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. pp.366-370

Pennsylvania State University Work Campus (2020). PSYCH 485. Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2045005/modules/items/28166610

Jim Collins, a former Stanford Business School professor, is the author of many books about leadership. Perhaps his most notable title is a book called “Good to Great”, published in 2001. As a leader in the Silicon Valley, I cannot begin to tell you how many times this book has been the basis of a training I’ve attended, referenced in articles published by companies that I have worked for, and how many copies of this book that I have been gifted. What I am trying to say is that the book is popular! The Economist says it best, “Good to Great”, published in 2001, have become the Harry Potters of management literature, hugely popular and holding the promise of magic.” (Economist, 2008, pg.1) Today I would like to look at the idea of Level 5 Leadership, one of the tenants of Collins’ book through the lens of what we have learned in our lesson about how power and influence mold organizations, relationships, and ultimately the leaders themselves. 

First, let’s look at how Mr. Collins defines a Level 5 Leader. “Level 5 leaders display a powerful mixture of personal humility and indomitable will. They’re incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for the cause, for the organization and its purpose, not themselves.” (www.jimcollins.com, 2020) Mr. Collins divides team members in an organization into five levels:

(Denis, 2018)

In his book, Collins shares that there are very few differences between Levels 4 and 5. The main one being that a Level 5 leader cares about the fate of the organization, long after they are no longer a part of it. They make decisions based on what is best for the organization and are able to separate their own ego and desires from what will be best for the company. “Level 5 leaders channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious – but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves.” (Collins, 2001, p.21) 

In our lesson this week, we started with a definition of power. “Power has been defined as the capability to produce affects on others or the potential to influence others.” (Hughes, 1993, p.107) We learned that many people in the organization have the ability to wield power, not just those in a leadership role. Some good examples of people who can wield power in an organization, without the title of “leader” would be teams that have unionized, a well-respected team member that has built strong relationships, and the team member who has the most subject-matter expertise in the organization. Our reading defines influence as “the change in a target agent’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors as a result of influence tactics.” (Hughes, 1993, p.108) Influence can be used by anyone in the organization to affect outcomes. Often, when we think of power and influence, we equate it to people who have formal titles and  have the authority to wield power on due to that title. I personally think of people like politicians and CEOs. However, as we learned this week “legitimate power” is just one type of power in the world. 

As identified by French and Raven in 1959, there are five sources of power that someone can use to influence other. I have mentioned one already – legitimate power. Legitimate power is power that is bestowed upon someone through a title. “It can be thought of as one’s formal or official authority.” (Hughes, 1993, p.115) Someone with legitimate power can assign projects, give raises, and dismiss people from the organization. Alone, legitimate power doesn’t make you a leader, rather it just bestows the ability to make decisions for the organization. The next source of power is “expert power”. The source of this power lies in an individuals intimacy with the subject at hand. Remember the person in the organization with the most subject-matter expertise? They have expert power. An example of expert power would be scientists who are developing new medicines to treat ailments. They are the experts in their field of study and have the power to shape future outcomes because of it.  Reward power is the third source of power and it refers to the ability to influence others through “controlling desired resources”. (Hughes, 1993, p.116)  Some examples of these desired resources could include a prime parking space, a bonus, or a promotion in the organization. You have reward power if you are in a position to grant these resources to others. The opposite of reward power is “coercive power”. Coercive power “is the potential to influence others through the administration of negative sanctions or the removal of positive events.” (Hughes, 1993, p.119) Some examples of this type of power include teachers giving students detention for bad behavior and the threat of jail time for breaking the law. 

I’ve saved “referent power” for last, as I feel that this is the type of power that related most directly to the ideas presented as part of Level 5 Leadership. Referent power refers to the power of relationships. It is the influence that a leader can have based on the strength of their relationships with their followers. If you wanted to assign competencies to this type of power, you might discuss Interpersonal Savvy, Building Relationships, and Listening. This type of power can be thought of as a necessary building block to gain more power as well. Followers can gain referent power by building relationships with other followers – remember the union? Someone who has referent power can be thought of as a leader, without having any of the other four types of power, because it is all in the relationships that they have built. You can then use referent power to gain the other four types of power and influence the organization. As our lesson quoted,  “Power in an organization is the capacity generated by relationships.” – Margaret A. Wheatley. 

(Hughes, 1993, p.114)

The acquisition of power is an interesting topic. When you discuss “getting power”, the imagery that can come to mind is someone who is ruthless, cut throat, and relentless in that pursuit. So, how does that align with the idea of a Level 5 Leader? In a 2017 speech, Jim Collins said “The X factor of truly great leadership is humility; humility combined with a ferocious will for something bigger than yourself, humility in a very special way… Level 5s lead in a spirit of service, and they subsume themselves and sacrifice for that. “ (www.jimcollins.com, 2017) Collins makes the distinction that a Level 5 Leaders “need for power” is derived from wanting the organization to be better, and their psychological satisfaction in this pursuit comes from improving the organization for everyone that is a part of it. In other works, they want “socialized power”. “Socialized power is exercised in the service of higher goals to others or organizations and often involves self-sacrifice toward those ends.” (Hughes, 1993, p.121) This concept is not new, in fact it’s been discussed for over 40 years. Jim Collins has been able to put a spin on it and increase its relevancy in todays business world, but it has long been understood that there is a choice to use your power for good or evil.

As a final thought on how the ideas of power and influence relate to the Level 5 leaders of today, I’ll call attention to a video that we watched as part of our lesson this week. In his discussion on “Power and Influence in the Collaborative Age”, Jeffrey Pfeffer says the following: “You do not need to use the same principles of the same ideas in managing up as you would managing laterally or as you would managing down. Leadership literature is about how to build a high-performing team or manage subordinates. Well, that presumes that you’ve managed to get yourself into a position where you have a team or subordinates.” (Pfeffer, 2011)  Mr. Pfeffer points our that there are different tactics that need to be employed in order to gain power, so that you have the opportunity to be a transformational Level 5 leader. Gaining power and then wielding power are two different things and require different kinds of work. Once you have gained power, you must then decide how you are going to wield it and whether socialized or personalized power is more important to you. This is also the line where the distinction between Level 4 and Level 5 leadership is made. I would also draw the correlation that the culture of a company can determine whether someone ultimately becomes of Level 4 or a Level 5 leader. I believe that someone who innately is a Level 5 leader and believes in the ideas behind socialized power, has the ability to change the culture in an organization for the better, thereby living up to the main tenant in “Good to Great” – leaving something better than you found it, for long after you are gone. 

References:

Today I would like to take some time to explore the premise of Contingency Theory and how it relates to real-world situations. Prior to taking this course, I have spent a good amount of time studying situational leadership as a participant in many classrooms. I have participated in work trainings, read books, and counseled other leaders on the topic of Situational Leadership, but was surprised to learn that Situational Leadership had an “opposite” in Contingency Theory and didn’t know much about it. Having been a student of Situational Leadership and using that knowledge in my work daily is what is driving my desire to learn more about how Contingency Theory can be applied in real-world setting, and I hope to explore that in this post.

As we learned in our lesson this week, Fiedler’s Contingency Model states that “Fiedler’s contingency model recognizes that leaders have general behavioral tendencies and specifies situations where certain leaders may be more effective than others.” (PSUWC, 2020, L.6) In essence, the model posits that leadership qualities are pretty set once a leader has matured. While we can continue to learn and grow in some regards, the core pieces of a leaders personalities are set after a certain point. The theory recommends that in order to get the best results, you match the leader to the situation. This idea differs from the Situational Leadership model in that the Situational Leadership model recommends that a leader adjust their style based on the situation. (PSUWC, 2020, L.6) While there are merits to both ideas, when applying these premises to real-world situations, I wondered which style might be more practical.

In order to apply the Contingency Theory, one must address the steps to understanding how to classify the work environment. The first step in this process is to determine what the variables of your situation are. We would begin by applying the “Least Preferred Co-worker Scale” to the situation. In this step, the leader answers questions about the team members that they have the hardest time working with. Their answers to these questions provide a determination as to whether the leader has a focus on tasks or people. There are three possible options. Leaders who will focus on tasks first and people second (scored lower on the scale), leaders who will focus on people first and tasks second (scored higher on the scale), and last people who scored in the middle and could focus on either area first. (Flinsch-Rodriguez, 2010) In my opinion, this is the first hurdle that the idea of a Contingency model faces. At a time when we are incredibly concerned with the experience of our people in the workforce, I couldn’t imagine a scenario where a leader was presented with a test and asked to rate the team member that they least prefer to interact with.  While the exercise might not call out a specific team member directly, putting a test like this into practice would likely not support positive morale in the organization. There are other issues with the “LPC” as well. “The instructions on the LPC scale are not clear; they do not fully explain how the respondent is to select his or her least preferred coworker. Some respondents may get confused between their least like coworker and their least preferred coworker.” (Northouse, 2007) The tool is not specific in how one should determine their ratings, or specific enough on what the ratings may mean.

The next step in the process involves a concept called situational favorability. This concept determines how much control the leader has over a situation. From the leader’s perspective, the more control that they have the more favorable the situation. (PSUWC, 2020, L.6) Control in this context is measured by leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Of these three measures, leader-member relations is the strongest measure of situational favorability. (PSUWC, 2020, L.6)  This is where I believe a second hurdle comes in for the overall process. Measuring leader-member relations can take some time, dependent on the size of the organization. You may believe that the team is feeling a certain way, only to uncover through surveys or interviews that there is an issue that you didn’t know about. Constantly assessing and grading these situations are time consuming and would interrupt the typical flow of the operation. After determining the status of the leader-member relations, we would next look at task structure. Task structure measures how hands-on a leader needs to be in order to complete a task. (Flinsch-Rodriguez, 2010) An example of a task that is highly structured, would be changing the oil at a local Lube & Tune. There is a set process, with multiple check points, and a very clear end result. A task that has low task structure would be welcoming customers in the store. There are many ways to welcome a customer, different things that could be said, and the end goal would still be achieved. Last in this step, we would need address the position power of the leader. Do they have sway in the organization? Can they affect change such as hiring decisions, wage adjustments, or annual reviews?

Once you have determined the situational favorability, you can then apply the results from the LPC and start making recommendations about situations that a leader would be a best fit for. Shown below is a figure that represents placement in the Contingency model.

(Northouse, 2007)

One of the main criticisms of the Contingency Model is that “it fails to explain fully why people with certain leadership styles are more effective in some situations rather than others.” (Northouse, 2007) There is no clear reason that task-motivated leaders may be better in tougher situations, as opposed the people-motivated leaders. Conversely, people-motivated leaders tend to fair better in good environments. This is where the third obstacle in the practical use of this theory comes into play. More often than not, a leader has to deal with the situations as they arise. Organizations don’t have the luxury of selecting a specific type of leader based on what is in front of them for the day. In my opinion, this makes the application of this model very tough. I think that there is a benefit in using the model to select an initial assignment for a leader. For example, you could select a task-motivated leader for an assignment in a department that is struggling, in order to help turn it around. The question becomes though, what is the longevity of using this model to keep making decisions? Do you keep swapping leaders in and out of positions based on the needs of that moment, and is that sustainable? In my opinion, it is not sustainable.

As a real world example, I would share an experience that I had while working for a global restaurant company. There was a time when I was faced with taking over a restaurant that was in very poor shape. As a leader who would have scored lower on the LPC scale at that time and who would have had good team member relations, as a new manager in the setting, high task structure, and strong position power, I was well-placed to take over the restaurant and turn the situation around. As time went on though, and the situation needed more relational leadership as we navigated the waters of a new boss and a newer staff, my fit became poorer and I was less effective in that position. This is where crux of the issue with the model lies. It wouldn’t make sense for my boss to remove me from that situation and replace me with another leader, just because the situation had changed. I had to adapt and figure out what my team needed from me, because that was my responsibility as a leader for the organization.

To answer a question that I posed earlier, I believe that Situational Leadership is a more practical tool to employ as a strategy for While I have been critical of the Contingency Theory model, I do believe that there is real benefit to using the model as a tool to consider  the strengths and weaknesses of a leader relative to the situation that they are faced with. The utilization of the theory is seems cumbersome, but I think that at the root of the method there is sound data and much that can be learned from matching a leader to a situation that they are the most skilled to handle. I feel that this theory is helpful in the initial decision making process of where to place talent, but also as a way to understand why talent may or may not be doing well in their current role. “It can be used to explain why a person is ineffective in a particular position even though the person is a conscientious, loyal, and hard-working manager. Also, the theory can be used to predict whether a person who has worked well in one position in an organization will be equally effective if moved into a quite different position in the same company.” (Northouse, 2007) It has been proven that there is a lot of benefit to considering the tenants of this model when making decisions around selection and disbursement of talent in an organization, as one of the tools in our tool belt.

References:

Flinsch-Rodriguez, P. (2010, December 27). Contingency Management Theory. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from https://www.business.com/articles/contingency-management-theory/

Northouse, P. G. (2007).Contingency Theory.  Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc. pp.113-126

Pennsylvania State University Work Campus (2020). PSYCH 485. Lesson 6: Contingency & Path-Goal Theories. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2045005/modules/items/28166610

I am a leader in my organization. As such, I get the opportunity to participate in leadership conferences, special training programs, and discussions intended to help us think differently about leadership. Sometimes it feels like each year brings a new flavor or focus on how to evolve our leadership. This past year, we spent a lot of time discussing our style of leadership and whether we were more drawn to leading with our heads or our hearts. This week’s lecture discusses the importance of utilizing many kinds of intelligence in order to be a successful leader.

In my organization, we spent time discussing our personal tendencies when it comes to leadership styles. The general question was “if you are presented with a problem, where do you look to first in order to solve it”? Our options to choose from were data or intuition. If you chose data, you were saying that when trying to solve for a new problem, you prefer to start with reviewing the facts and making sure that you have subject-matter expert levels of knowledge. If you chose intuition, you were saying that you leaned on your feelings about the matter and had a tendency to create strategy based on that. Ultimately, the messaging was very clear that a great leader needs to know how to balance both in order to be successful. Equally important is the idea that you should surround yourself with people who think differently from you in order to employ a system of checks and balances on your work.

This idea of using both data and intuition relates directly back to Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence. In Sternberg’s theory he focuses on what leaders do when presented with a problem and his theory says that they employ three types of intelligence in order to problem solve. The first is analytic intelligence, which is general problem solving ability. The second is practical intelligence, or intelligence that you have learned over time in real world situations. This could also be called “street smarts”. The last type of intelligence is creative intelligence, which is the ability to create something new and useful in order to solve a problem. (PSU WC, 2020, Lesson 2) In my opinion, the analytical intelligence relates to the use of data, practical intelligence relates to the use of intuition, and the creative intelligence speaks to the ability that a leader has to combine the two.

When considering your personal leadership style, I think that it is important to be skilled in the area of self-awareness, as that will first allow you to create an honest assessment of your personal style. Once you know where your tendencies lie, you can do work to strengthen the integration of all types of intelligence and surround yourself with people that can support you in the areas that you might have a harder time with. “In today’s business environment – which is characterized by constant change and multiple and highly complex challenges – neither approach is sufficient in itself. Rather, both are needed to make real headway in increasing employee engagement.” (von Der Heyt, 2014)

References:

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2016). PSYCH 281 Lesson 2: Trait Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2040131/modules/items/28001665

von der Heyt, Andreas. “How To Lead With Head And Heart – The Ultimate Balancing Act.” LinkedIn, 10 Aug. 2014, www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140810111135-175081329-how-to-lead-with-head-and-heart-the-ultimate-balancing-act/.