Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

Servant Leadership

by

Hello Everyone,

This week’s lesson covered the concept of servant leadership. Servant leadership believes that a leader’s role is not necessarily to always give explicit instructions and direct the actions of others, but instead seeks to support the development of their followers (PSU WC, 2021, L. 11, p. 3). In this model, leaders place the needs of their followers over their own needs. Through this process followers are prepared to themselves become servant leaders, similar to how parents prepare their children for adulthood (PSU WC, 2021, L. 11, p. 3). By empowering followers to take over various activities normally dealt with by the leader, the leaders are able to focus on matters that only they can handle.

Northouse (2019) identified seven behaviors that are demonstrated by servant leaders: conceptualizing, emotional healing, putting followers first, helping followers grow, behaving ethically, creating value in the community, and empowering (pp. 235-237). These behaviors cover a variety of areas, but all of them require the leader to examine the needs of other parties. These may be the needs of the organization, such as when leaders conceptualize, or providing opportunities for growth, such as in empowerment and putting followers first. To be effective in these behaviors, leaders must possess a strong sense of empathy, practice their active listening abilities, and foresight to identify future needs of followers (Northouse, 2019, pp. 229-230). These behaviors and characteristics not only help to better followers, but can also positively impact the organization.

Organizations who encourage servant leadership experience several benefits. First, the organization gains a more competent workforce, and team processes improve (Northouse, 2019, p. 329). Also, servant leaders tend to practice more citizen behaviors, which can improve the overall function of the organization as well as have positive benefits to society. Organizations which emphasize servant leadership may partake in more altruistic opportunities, such as charity, or at least remain more focused on the well-being of their employees rather than solely focusing on organizational goals.

My last year in the military was spent in the role of an infantry squad leader. Directly over the squad leaders were platoon commander and platoon sergeant, and each squad leader supervised three team leaders. While the military is ultimately authoritative, leaders at all levels are encouraged to practice servant leadership to a degree. My platoon commander, Captain Barns, and platoon sergeant, Staff Sergeant Peters, believed that the best way for us to develop our abilities was to be given opportunities to implement our own strategies when planning and conducting exercises. The only times they would intervene were if our actions threatened our ability to satisfy unit goals and objectives. For squad level events, they were almost entirely hands off. I could discuss my ideas with them and seek feedback, but otherwise was allowed to develop any strategy I felt was appropriate. They also provided opportunities for growth, allowing squad leaders to assume either platoon commander or platoon sergeant roles, so that we could gain experience and knowledge for later in our careers. As with smaller exercises, they would only intervene if our plans threatened our success. Squad leaders were also encouraged to develop the team leaders under their care. I included my team leaders in the planning process, and gave them almost complete control over their team’s individual actions in training exercises. I only provided guidelines they had to operate within.

Cpt. Barns and SSgt. Peters displayed many of the servant leader behaviors identified by Northouse (2019, p. 233). By allowing us to control our own squads, as well as take on take on their roles when possible, they attempted to empower each of us as well as help us grow and succeed. Feedback they provided to us helped us to better understand how our actions impacted the organization, as well as what was expected of us. They wanted us to be able to take on larger responsibilities, and conceptualized a platoon which was able to be successful and act independently of their orders. Feedback also demonstrated their focus on emotional healing, as it was an opportunity to address our concerns over our abilities (Northouse, 2019, p. 235). Experience in these endeavors also increased our value to the community, and made us more useful at all levels of the organization. Finally, they demonstrated that they were willing to put their followers first. No matter what, they always took time to assist when needed, and were concerned for our well-being. Their example allowed us to see how these behaviors were beneficial not just to ourselves but better served the platoon, and were adopted by many squad and team leaders.

Cpt. Barns and SSgt. Peters fully satisfied the model of servent leadership presented in Northouse (2019, p. 233). They created a culture which promoted servant leadership, and possessed many of the characteristics required for successful implementation. Followers were receptive, as most welcomed the opportunity to better themselves, and understood that leaders only wanted what was best for them. In this environment all leaders were able to adopt servant behaviors, which in turn resulted in beneficial outcomes. The members of the platoon who were open to development were able to perform better and develop their abilities. The organization itself improved, as more followers were prepared to handle responsibility. While the societal impacts are hard to determine, if these individuals took servant leader behaviors to their careers outside of the military, they can help empower others. This period in my life demonstrated to me that servant leadership is an effective method, so long as followers are receptive to leader efforts. I have attempted to integrate this into my future managerial roles, with varying degrees of success. If followers are not receptive, this model will likely fail. When they are receptive, the model will succeed so long as the leader demonstrates appropriate behaviors.

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publishing.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485, Lesson 11: Servant Leadership. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30986014.

Style and Situation

by

Hello Everyone,

This lesson discussed the style and situational approaches to leadership. The style approach focuses on behaviors that leaders engage in, separated into task behaviors and relationship behaviors (PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 3). Task behaviors are those which support goal achievement, while relationship behaviors focus on the interactions between group members (Northouse, 2019, p. 73). The style approach seeks to explain the various ways leaders combine task and relationship behaviors to create effective teams who are able to achieve goals outlined by the leader or organization.

After reading about Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid (Northouse, 2019, pp. 76-79), I attempted to determine where my leadership style would be placed. The grid compares a leaders concern for results and concern for people on the x and y axis, using a scale of one through nine for both. One is low concern, while nine demonstrates high levels of concern. When I first entered supervisory roles, my task focus was clearly higher than my relationship focus. I was more concerned with proving that I could meet requirements, rather than being able to effectively work with others. I was closer to the authority-compliance management that team management, or middle of the road management (Northouse, 2019, p. 77). I would often only communicate if it was to provide instructions, or give clarification if needed. Over time, I realized that this behavior was not appropriate. Those I supervised would only come to me for clarification, however did not feel comfortable approaching me with other issues. I needed to change. I began to engage more with my staff, and began to seek their input on decisions which would impact their work behaviors. I became more willing to compromise on how tasks were approached, so long as it did not impact task completion or goal achievement. I focused on being more willing to address issues, actively listening to concerns among my staff and explaining how their actions will positively or negatively affect desired outcomes. I also took greater care to explain why certain decisions were made, in an attempt to be more open (Northouse, 2019, pp. 77-78). Today, I feel that my leadership style would be placed at about a (9,7) on Blake and Mouton’s Grid, between middle-of-the-road management and team management . I still remain primarily task focused, but now more actively seek to engage my employees. In doing so I feel that my team is more willing to accept undesired decisions, as they are more involved with the process.

However, there is not one style of leadership which is appropriate for all situations. The situational approach was introduced by Hersey and Blanchard (1969, as cited in PSU WC, 2021), and examines how leaders behave in different situations (L. 5, p. 12). This theory explains leadership as either directive or supportive, and actively advises leaders on what combination is suited for various situations. Directive behaviors are similar to the task behaviors described by Blake and Mouton (Northouse, 2019), while supportive behaviors include those which are more relationship focused (p. 76). Blanchard (2008) established four categories of leadership behavior: directing, coaching, supporting, and delegating (as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). These styles allow for leaders to choose the best way to interact with followers, depending on the situation.

Currently, I have five employees under my supervision. One, Ken, has been at the facility for ten years, and is also a supervisor. With him, I primarily use a delegating style, only interfering when he needs to be made aware of changes in procedure, or as information pertinent to his tasks arises. We honestly do not interact often, as he is located in another building, but I have full confidence that he will act appropriately in any situation. He would be considered developmental level 4 (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). The other four vary between developmental levels 2 and 3, depending on the task. These employees have not been at the facility for a long time, at most eighteen months, and as such have not had to respond to the variety of issues myself and Ken have dealt with. With these employees I alternate between a coaching and supporting style. When they first encounter a new task, such as adding areas to their patrol routes, I tend to utilize a coaching style (Blanchard, 2008, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). This style is highly directive and supporting, similar to what I attempt to accomplish when introducing new tasks. First, I will explain the task in detail, identifying all goals such as ensuring certain doors are secure or looking for signs of attempted forced entry or degrading systems. I will give them specific items to look for, directing their behavior. Following this, I will encourage them to ask questions, ensure that they have any additional equipment or other tools to complete the new task, and encourage them to seek additional help as necessary. Once they and I feel that they understand what is required of them, my behavior will become more supportive. At this point, I do not feel that I have to remind them of the task, nor do I demand it be done in a specific way. The officer can choose the approach best suited to them, so long as responsibilities are met and goals fulfilled. The officers are encouraged to provide feedback on any aspect of their duties, in an attempt to address issues as a group.

While I normally attempt to use a coaching, supporting or delegating style, there are instances where a directing approach is required. The directing style occurs when the leader provides explicit instructions to followers, without seeking their input or discussing the decisions made (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, as cited in PSU WC, 2021, L. 5, p. 12). My most important duty is to oversee security response to site emergencies, in coordination with medical first responders or other departments. In these events my group is dispersed across the site, and all communication with other departments occurs through me. In order to ensure that the efforts of multiple groups are successful, all decisions for my staff must be made by me. If decisions are made independently, it can have negative consequences for all parties. It is not that I feel they are incapable, but they will often not have all relevant information. Group members understand that once the event has ended, I will provide a thorough explanation of what occurred, and why we responded as we did. There simply is not time during the event to have a discussion. Applying these various leadership styles as necessary ensures that goals are met, while at the same time helping to develop the abilities of my staff.

-Turf

References

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publishing.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485, Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985917.

Anybody Can Be a Leader

by

Earlier this semester we studied the trait approach, which assumes that all leaders possess certain innate abilities that make the uniquely gifted to lead (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 1). The majority of research into the various traits postulates that individuals must be born with these traits, they cannot be taught or learned later in life (Northouse, 2019, pp. 21-22). Organizations utilize this approach in order to predict who among their staff may be able to serve as leaders in the future, or to identify which job candidates possess desired traits through tests based on the Five Factor Model (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 3).

In my blog post from that lesson, I explored how the leaders in my professional life all had traits that made them successful in their situation, but would not have experienced that level of success in other environments (Turfa, 2021). I now realize that not only had their personality impacted their effectiveness as a leader, but they had also dedicated themselves to developing related skills which they were able to incorporate into their leadership. These individuals actively worked towards improving their leadership, rather than believing that their personal characteristics were enough. Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, and Fleishman (2000, as cited in PSU WC, 2021) identified three areas of skills that they believed high-performing leaders were proficient in (L. 4, p. 4). The first area, individual attributes, comprises an individual’s: general intelligence, ability to gather knowledge, willingness to accept being a leader, and personality. The second category includes various skills related to judgement and effective decision making, also referred to as competencies (Northouse, 2019, p. 47). Leadership outcomes refer to how effective the individual’s problem solving abilities are, as well as how well they are able to perform as a leader. These three categories comprise a variety of skills that leaders can seek to improve on through training and practice. The exception to this is an individual’s motivation, or willingness to be a leader (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4, p. 4). Individuals are either willing to accept a leadership role, or they are not. If an individual who does not desire to lead is placed in a position where they must, they will most likely be ineffective, regardless of their proficiency in any of the other skills.

Within my first year at my current job, seven of our ten supervisors quit, three within a month of each other. This led to a scramble by management to identify which officers could be selected to fill these positions as soon as possible, with individuals who would be capable of not only leading current staff but training the new hires. My organization prefers to promote internally for supervisory role, as our facility has many unique procedures that must be followed, and officers who have experience with these tend to be the most effective at complying with them. Management elected to fill one of these positions with James, surprising to many of us. James did not seem like the ideal choice to many of us. He had never held a leadership role prior to this, while other candidates had military or law enforcement backgrounds. He also did not seem overly intelligent, or particularly driven to move to positions of higher authority. Many of us were unsure that he would be able to lead at all. In retrospect, we were wrong. After taking over second shift, James displayed a high level of crystallized cognitive ability (Northouse, 2019, p. 47). He understood what he did not know, and placed great effort into filling these gaps in his knowledge, and then applying it to his decision making. James was clearly willing to lead, and possessed a personality that made him a perfect fit to interact with others. He seemed to understand the correct way to explain issues to each individual, in a way that made it easy to process decisions or other changes. He was also quite adept at identifying what the root cause of problems were, evaluating potential solutions, and applying the one which best fit the problem and the situation at hand (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4, p. 4). In addition to being a gifted problem solver, James was a great judge of social cues. He realized when he needed to modify his behavior to achieve a desired outcome, such as being harsher with employees who attempted to undermine our procedures. Finally, James was able to persuade others to implement decisions that were unusual, but often made our work more efficient. The combination of James’ individual attributes and competencies made him into a highly-effective leader (Northouse, 2019, p. 54). The only times I remember his problem solving being ineffective were when he was not provided enough information to make a decision, or the situation was poorly explained by others. James became one of the best supervisors I had prior to my being promoted off of his shift, and is now a regional manager for another security organization.

To me, James is the greatest example of how the skills approach is effective. James actively worked to improve his abilities as a leader. This was achieved through his realization of his own shortcomings, identifying ways to improve, and seeking constant feedback from both his followers as well as his leaders. James proved to me that anybody can be a leader, and that the traits an individual possesses are less important than their willingness to learn.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publishing

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985871.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 4: Skills Approach [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985902.

Turfa, A. (2021, February 1). Traits and Situations. Penn State Leadership: PSYCH 485 blog. https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2021/02/01/traits-and-situations/.

Followership

by

“You cannot have leaders without followers.” (Northouse, 2019, p. 293).

My first leadership position was as an infantry squad leader in the Marine Reserves. Shortly after entering that role, my platoon leadership sat me down to begin their efforts to shape me as a leader. First, they asked me what a squad leader’s weapon system was. I answered “M4 Carbine”, which was incorrect. The actual answer is the squad itself. The young men, now men and women, who you are responsible for comprise your weapon. Without them, the best laid plans are impossible. The squad leader provides direction, guidance, and strategies, while the squad itself provides the capability for action. When making decisions, squad leaders must consider the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals who comprise this squad. Deciding that the group will cover five miles in one hour can only work if the all individuals are able to complete this task, otherwise the performance of the entire group will fall below expectations. When making decisions, effective leaders will be influenced by the skills and behaviors of their followers, and incorporate this influence into their decision making process.

The role that followers have in the leadership process is known as followership (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3, pp. 1-2), and can be further divided into either role-based or relational-based perspectives. The first perspective, role-based, is what I have experienced throughout my professional life. In this perspective, follower characteristics directly influence followers’ behavior. This behavior is then combined with leader behaviors, in order to produce outcomes (PSU WC, 2021, L. 3, p. 5). This is also known as reversing the lens. As demonstrated by the example above, outcomes are a direct result of follower and leader behaviors. When determining how to utilize the teams assigned to me in order to complete a training exercise, I first had to identify what the objectives were. Afterwards, I would determine which team of individuals was best suited for each task, and delegate assignments accordingly. In doing so, my leadership is clearly influenced by the behaviors of my followers. If one team was required to scale a wall, I would select the team who was the most physically fit. If another portion required us to use specialized equipment, I would select the team most familiar with that equipment. Failing to do so damages the group’s chances of success.

Three years ago, I was promoted to my current position as an armed security supervisor. I became responsible for overseeing all activities conducted by officers for whichever shift I was working, ensuring that scheduling needs were met, and ensuring that response to any events was appropriate based on regulatory guidelines and organizational policies. It also meant that I had to revisit the personal relationships I had with other employees as well as management I worked with. I now realize that I had attempted to utilize the leadership co-created process when reexamining these relationships (Northouse, 2019, p. 305). With other employees, the relationship was redefined to reference that decisions I made were to be followed, whether during emergency events or when making changes to shift practices. In exchange, I would make sure to clearly explain why the changes or directions were necessary, and I would remain open to input from them. I have continued to encourage this discourse, when done in an appropriate manner, and feel that individuals generally trust that I will make well informed decisions, and that changes I have made have not caused an unfair increase in required effort.

This process did not always go smoothly. One employee, Bill, had been at the facility approximately one year longer than I had at this time, and was upset that I had received two promotions when he had not received any. Bill did not possess great knowledge regarding our procedures, and was often found socializing instead of completing his duties in a timely fashion. These behaviors ultimately led to his never being promoted, however he never made attempts to change. Shortly after being named supervisor, I tasked Bill with restricting access to a project site at the facility to ensure that nobody unauthorized entered. This included searching contractor vehicles as well as monitoring the area for unauthorized employees. After the first of three days, I received a complaint that Bill had held up the entering contractors, delaying the day’s work by thirty minutes. Reviewing the camera footage showed Bill check identification, compare it to the authorized list, and search the vehicles within ten total minutes. The remaining twenty minutes, Bill was seen talking to individuals and showing them something on his smart phone. I decided to pull Bill from the project. When I informed him of this the next day, he tried to say that I did not have the authority to do so (I did), and that since he had been with the organization longer he was really my supervisor, despite what our titles said (he wasn’t). I reminded him that it was my decision to place him on the project, and with the evidence I felt that I had no choice but to replace him with an employee who would demonstrate the correct behaviors. Bill complained to our manager, at which point I sat down with Bill to redefine our relationship. I explained that his behavior jeopardized our company’s ability to meet goals, which I was now responsible for ensuring. His unwillingness to perform in an acceptable way forced my hand, and that I had no choice but to replace him. Unfortunately, Bill continued to attempt to usurp the authority I had, resulting in his being moved to a different shift where he would have minimal contact with other employees. Bill found new employment shortly after. Bill refused to contribute to the leadership co-created process (Northouse, 2019, pp. 305-306), believing that our relationship had not changed despite my organization’s decision to promote me. I admit that I grew frustrated with his actions, and did not seek to define this relationship later. Had we approached the discussion again, I feel it could have resulted in a better co-created process, one in which both parties better understood each other.

This lesson has allowed me to reexamine events in my own life, and gain a better understanding of how the role-based and relational-based perspectives of leadership can be applied to outcomes in my own life. I feel that I have a better understanding of how to incorporate followers’ behaviors into my leadership going forward, hopefully resulting in generally positive outcomes.

References

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). Psych 485, Lesson 3: Followership [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985887

Traits and Situations

by

During this week’s reading, one statement really stood out to me. When discussing the various traits that had been identified as being linked to effective leadership, Stogdill (1948, as cited in Northouse, 2019) stated that this is inaccurate (p. 19). He stated that leaders and followers do not have any specific traits which distinguished them, but rather that leaders emerged as a combination of the characteristics they possessed as well as the environment they found themselves in. This forced me to reflect on my own experiences with leaders I’ve had in the past, as well as myself as a leader.

The trait approach to leadership claims that effective leaders possess certain traits that allow them to be good leaders. Stogdill (1974, as cited in PSU WC, 2021) identified ten traits that he believed were present in effective leaders, to include: drive, persistence, willingness to accept consequences, originality, and ability to influence others (L. 2, p. 2). This falls under the category of the “great man” theories of leadership, or traits possessed by great leaders throughout history which psychologists believed allowed them to succeed as leaders in a wide array of disciplines (Northouse, 2019, pp. 19-20). This concept was continued by other researches, such as Kirkpatrick and Locke (1992, as cited in Northouse, 2019), however no two lists of traits were identical (pp.20-23). This is one of the greater criticisms of the trait approach, as no clearly defined list has emerged, as well as debates between whether so called leadership traits are innate, or can be learned (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 11). Kirkpatrick and Locke believed that both were possible, however they were in the minority (Northouse, 2019, p. 22).

Throughout my professional career I have worked: for a construction company, a gas station, a bouncer, as an infantry squad leader in the Marine Corps Reserves, and finally as a supervisor for a contracting company which provides armed security. Through these roles I have both been exposed to a variety of leaders, as well as been in leadership positions myself. These experiences have led me to believe that Stogdill’s statement in 1948 was correct, that traits alone are not sufficient to distinguish leaders, but rather the situation also plays a role in their emergence. For example, while in the reserves I was also working as a bouncer and event security for several locations in Boone, NC. My manager at the time, Mark, had formerly served in the Marine Corps. It was here that he had developed his leadership style, which I initially thought was a good match. He possessed several traits such as decisiveness, confidence, and an ability to discipline when necessary, which are good qualities for those seeking to lead individuals in military units. However, in a civilian work environment these traits tended to come off as more narcissistic than confident. You couldn’t make suggestions to Mark, or ever question his decisions, without him lashing out at you, and taking you off the schedule as punishment. I believe that Mark would have succeeded as a leader in the military. His personality would have allowed him to gain the trust of his subordinates, and influence them to act cooperatively in a manner supporting both the mission and each other.

My current manager, Jim, is the opposite of Mark. Jim is hesitant to discipline problematic employees, and often appears more focused on fostering relationships than maintaining order among his staff. He hesitates when making decisions, and gives large amounts of leeway to his supervisors, even when the decision truly should come from him. Despite this, Jim excels in his role. He is able to handle issues that arise between our department and other facility employees, and explain why we must engage in certain actions that cause issues to others. He has a knack for understanding how to communicate with others so that they understand his desires, and has been able to clearly express desired goals when introducing policy changes. His environment has allowed him to succeed, rather than any single trait. If Jim was in a military unit, I doubt that he would have the amount of success he has experienced in his current role.

The best leader I have had was my platoon sergeant during my time in the Marines, SSgt. Robert. He possessed many of the traits identified by both Stogdill (1978), as well as Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991), which are related to effective leadership (Northouse, 2019, pp. 20-21). He was willing to take risks, and change his decisions with the presentation of new information. He was also patient, driven to succeed, self-confident, able to easily influence others, possessed a strong knowledge of his abilities and weaknesses, and willingness to accept responsibility for his actions. However, I believe that the greatest traits he possessed were adaptability, and the willingness to admit when he was not best suited to lead in a given situation. To the former, I simply never saw the man uncomfortable in any setting. No matter who was present, where we were, or what he was doing, he always displayed a positive attitude and seemed relaxed and competent in his abilities to lead. His success was not only limited to the Marine Corps, but also to his civilian roles as a police officer and firefighter. I witnessed the latter during a multi-day exercise when working with foreign militaries. We were attempting to utilize their equipment to simulate an amphibious landing, and were having issues proceeding. After a few minutes he announced that until we hit a certain point, he was handing control over to the Ukrainians accompanying us, as he was not confident with using the equipment. Officially, he was supposed to be in charge of all units present, including four foreign military attachments. Success would be recorded favorably in his service record, and likely speed him towards promotion. Despite this, he was unafraid to acknowledge that in the current situation, others present were more able to allow us to complete goals. I can honestly say that I know few leaders, military or civilian, who would have done the same. Of all the leaders I have worked with, he is the only one who I can honestly say did not exhibit any of the dark-side personality traits associated with ineffective leadership (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 5). Since I left the service, Robert has been promoted to Gunnery Sergeant, and moved into a company command position. In our last conversation he was excited for the opportunity, both the challenges and the lessons they would provide. To this day, GySgt. Robert is the leader I attempt to emulate the most, regardless of what situation I find myself in.

The one trait that Mark, Jim, and GySgt. Robert all possessed is intelligence, albeit different types. The Triarchic Theory of Intelligence describes three types of intelligence: analytic intelligence, often linked to problem solving abilities, practical intelligence or common sense, and creative intelligence, which is linked to developing work in a way that is new and useful (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 8). I feel that Mark and Jim both possessed analytic intelligence, in that they are able to identify issues and develop solutions. Unfortunately, this is the only type of intelligence that I believe Mark possesses. Jim, on the other hand, also does possess some practical intelligence. His ability to communicate effectively and work with individuals regardless of their personality demonstrates this. I would argue that GySgt. Robert possessed all three types of intelligence as described by Triarchic Theory (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2, p. 8). He showed analytical intelligence through examining situations and identifying how to resolve issues. His practical intelligence, or “street smarts,” allowed him to adapt to any situation and any group of personnel, while still being able to achieve goals. Finally, he was willing to be innovative in his approach to problem solving, trying new solutions that may otherwise have been ignored. Ultimately, I believe his possession of these intelligences, as well as his adaptability, are what have allowed him to be successful in several roles in different environments.

After completing this blog, I now realize that I believe the single most important trait for leaders to have is adaptability. No situation will remain unchanged, and being able to persevere through these changing environments is possibly the hallmark of a truly great leader. I was fortunate enough to have worked with one in GySgt. Robert, and hope that I will have the opportunity to learn from others in the future.

Thank you for reading,

-Turf

 

Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publishing

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2021). PSYCH 485 Lesson 2: Trait Approach [Online Course]. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110258/modules/items/30985871.

Skip to toolbar