During my athletic career, I have been a part of many teams. I have seen many leaders give their best effort in order to lead the team to successful results. I have been a part of successful and nonsuccess teams. I have had good leaders on nonsuccess teams, and bad leaders on successful teams. I talk about success here as merely an outcome, the result of a season. But, in this essay, I would like to talk about success on other levels. Is winning really the only measure of success and a true measure of good leadership?

”Team performance functions include getting the job done, making decisions, solving problems, adapting to changes, making plans, and achieving goals” (Hamel, 2021). A leader’s main job is to help a team function properly and efficiently. This means that they are facilitating good values and instrumental characteristics that will enhance the team’s culture. They can do this in many different ways that do not have anything to do with their direct performance.

For example, a leader can lower the stress levels of the players by giving them time to take care of personal business before coming to practice. Now, this does not mean they will allow players to skip practice, rather it shows how considerate they are in terms of the overall health of a player. They show that they care about their well-being and that they are in fact invested in their player’s life. This care and investment can help a player value his or her family and friends more. The leader has started a ”ketchup effect”. By caring for their player on more levels than just performance, they have allowed the players themselves to invest in other areas of their life, not just in their sport.

Why did I just give this simple example? I wanted to allow you to shift your attention from directional performance and look at what a leader contributes to the player on a larger scale. Imagine having a leader with this level of attention taking care of 24 + athletes at a time. I would say those athletes are pretty fortunate. And the more their leader can show them that he or she does not exclusively care about the wins and losses, hopefully, in turn, he/she will have more respectful competitors who are truly enjoying the process of things. Their stress levels will not spiral out of control after a loss and they will not adopt an arrogant mindset when they win. They will stay stable and most importantly allow other things in their life to also take up space.

In conclusion, I think treating an athlete as a whole person will be more successful long term than any of the individual wins in terms of games throughout the season. Success is not measured only by a player’s athletic performance but by their investment in their relationship, stress levels, faith, and more. I think leadership in this sense can dig deeper and be able to bring forth a better experience in the athletic world.

References

Hamel, R. (n.d.). Lesson 9: Team Leadership, 2021

To me, when I think of authentic leadership I think of Barack Obama. I think he is one of few leaders that have had the most power over people but have used it in sincere ways. He has always intended to influence his country, not through dominion or aggression, but rather inspiration and authenticity. Now, I am not an American native, so I am not overly obsessed with his specific political sphere. Instead, I have been able to observe his leadership from distance and without personal attachment to any of his political decisions.

Who is Barack Obama? Obama was the 44th president of the United States. He served in the White House as president from 2009 to 2017. He was also the first black man to serve. A total of eight years. He was known for being a very influential leader and calm during crises. He endured incredible charisma and sensitivity toward his country. He was a true embodiment of an authentic leader. Authentic leadership summarized by having strong honest relationships, being true to oneself, and lastly, it is not fixed, abilities are developed over time (Hamel, 2021).

He exampled sensitivity when the country was in crisis when he first arrived at the president’s seat. He managed to pull a diverse number of parties together and heal the cultural divide. Not only, by the way, he handled some of the questions in regards to diversity but also who he chose to have around him. He picked a diverse group of people with several different backgrounds to work with him in the White House. He was always true to himself and displayed a positive attitude. With his campaign slogan being ”Yes We Can” he encouraged the American people to always be optimistic.

It is known across media reports that he read 10 letters from the public every day to ensure he kept the people in focus. After all, he served the people and was very well aware of this. His job was to build capacity in the people and then let their potential electrify. One of the main qualities an authentic leader embodies is ”walking the talk”. Obama expected his people to be good because he was a good-hearted person himself. He did not expect anything out of them that he did not do himself. Again, this shows that he sought to influence and inspire his people instead of demanding and forcing. He made them want to work for him because he was able to convey that he genuinely wanted the best for them.

To conclude,

It is clear that Barack Obama conveyed a positive authentic leadership. He included others in the decision-making process and wanted the best possible opportunities for the people. He wanted to include everyone and from all different kinds of cultures and Ideals. He always assumed that progress would be done by togetherness and not individualism. It is absolutely clear that Barack Obama is an authentic leader.

References:

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 12: Authentic Leadership

There are several ways to lead effectively. The situational leader believes that no single leadership style will help them achieve their common goals. Instead, they adopt all styles and incorporate them as they see fit depending on each situation. “The situational approach demands that a leader match his/her style to the competence and commitment of the followers” (Hamel, 2021). The situational leader is flexible and adapts his approach in accordance with the needs of his followers. Northouse (2019) described situational leadership as being “composed of both a directive and supportive dimension and that each has to be applied appropriately in a given situation”.

There will be individual differences among each group of followers. For example, in a team, there might be people coming from all over the world to join together in this group and strive to achieve optimal performance. Since the group of followers is so diverse; meaning that they will probably have different techniques on how to do certain tasks, different communication strategies, different motivations, cultural beliefs, and so on. The list will be endless on all the unique differences each of them custom on a daily basis. All these factors will contribute to a team’s ability to get the job done. Each of your teammates will also have different values and motivations into why they are doing what they are doing. How can a leader navigate such a rich landscape of diversity?

Let me ask you a question, would you treat a highly determined and enthusiastic teammate the same as you would treat a lazy teammate with no intrinsic motivation? I will guess that your answer is no. Your enthusiastic teammate would presumably not need nearly as much hand-holding as your lazy teammate would. Although your high achiever might need some feedback once in a while, they might not need the leader’s attention all the time. If you would start to ”babysit” them and order them around, telling them what to do, they would potentially feel a lack of autonomy and eventually withdraw (the reaction to a disturbance in one’s environment will be different for everyone, this is just an example). As far as the lazy teammate of yours, without a sense of direction, he might go off on his own and break team rules. For him, the word structure would probably fit best, in order to realize his potential.

Why is adopting no style, the best style then? The example mentioned above is two different leadership styles applied to two different people. Each of them needing another style to perform at their best. Ideally one could hope that there would be one single coach available for every player on the team, although that would arise other challenges eventually. Most groups do not have access to those resources. With that said, the most effective way to reach a diverse number of individuals will be to develop a situational leader. A leader who could be both warm and direct, both supportive and demanding. A leader who can adjust appropriately in any given situation (Northouse, 2019). This way, one leader will simply reach more individuals.

In conclusion, being a situational leader will only be beneficial. It will require a tremendous amount of self-awareness and readiness but it could be done. In order to strive for optimal performance, a leader’s job is literally to bring out the best in people. Knowing that a group of followers include a diversity of individuals with their own beliefs and ways on how to do things, it is absolutely essential for a leader to be able to adjust to what each specific individual need.

References: 

Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches.

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

”You are a natural, you were born a leader.” This saying is something I have personally heard a lot of times throughout my life. If not directed towards me, it was directed toward someone else. I believe we all have experienced a degree of this person; everything seems to happen so effortlessly. He or she takes responsibility in a team for example, ”naturally” direct and deliberate instructions or provide inspiration for her/his teammates continually. It seems to happen out of habit. It seems to have been pre-made somehow because of how fluent this person’s leadership skills are.

Are these skills purely inherited? And if someone is born a leader and has all the skills required to, in theory, be a successful leader, does that make them a leader? What if this natural leader does not want to be a leader? Nevertheless, is there such a thing as a ”good leader” to begin with? Who gets to say? A good leader to me can be a bad leader for you. The concept of inherited traits versus developed traits goes far back. Today we will continue the conversation and break down some of the main concepts.

          The skills approach implies that behaviors involved in leadership can be developed over time. Hence, emphasize that leadership is something you learn and anyone can learn how to be a good leader (Northouse, 2019). In turn, the trait approach focuses more on personality and its inherent characteristics. Meaning, the trait approach assumes that a good leader is born that way. The trait approach was studied to determine what makes great leaders (Northouse, 2019). Northouse (2019) points out five major characteristics that are considered “major” leadership traits, which include intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability. To take this further, are you born with intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability? I can’t think of anyone born this way.

Take me as an example; My self-confidence was developed over years of failure. Eventually the pain of playing small was greater than the stride to bloom, hence I made it my mission to develop confidence. Confidence is something I still struggle with but I have learned techniques to be confident despite being unsure about things. Was I born with inherited intelligence? Now, this is debatable. I say it is debatable because whether or not you are spiritual this question can take many routes. However, I think we can all agree that to a degree, intelligence in terms of practical knowledge is learned throughout years of imitating those around and acquiring necessary knowledge from, for example, school. Of the five traits mentioned by Northouse, some might be debatable as something that is inherited, but the majority of traits I would argue are indeed learned throughout your life.

           To conclude then, there are certain traits that we are born with that can support our leadership abilities. But most ”good” traits are learned throughout your childhood and modeled by your parents as well as many other sources. With that said, your parents may not have been good leaders, but they modeled a type of leadership that you could observe and analyze if you choose to. You might have decided that the way they did things was not good, and you went along and developed better strategies. Either way, you have learned from others and your own failure and successes.  I think it is clear by now that I favor the skills approach. I cannot agree with the notion that there are natural-born leaders. I believe even the most effortless leaders have trained hard to get to that point. Absolutely, they might have been fortunate to have great luck with circumstances and great people who have shaped them, but that is a different story. The concepts of leadership and good traits are way more complex than the concepts of it being inherited and natural.

 

References

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

Hamel, R. (n.d.). Lesson 4: Skills Approach, 2021