Click below to see my Midterm on Ocean's 11
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51351106/HTM-491-Midterm
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
James MacGregor Burns...
James MacGregor Burns was born in Melrose on August 3, 1918. His passion for history started an early age. He majored in political science at Williams and earned a PhD in government at Harvard. He received a Pulitzer Prize and National Book award in 1956 and 1970 for two different books. While establishing his leadership theory, he shyed away from transactional management and focused on the mutual benefits of the leader and follower. He is best known for his contributions towards transformational, aspirational and visionary schools of leadership theory. He is the author of several books on leadership and the leadership style of US Presidents. His newest adventure is working on the politics of the Supreme Court.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Gossip Girl...
I love the show gossip girl because it allows me to live vicariously through the lives of Manhattans elite. The main characters are a group of friends that live on the upper east side of Manhattan. They are in their second year of college so it is easy to relate to where they are in their lives. Although they are a couple years younger than I am, I can remember that time in my life quite clearly. Instead of recalling just one episode, I will incorporate their overall leadership style throughout the series.
Path Goal Theory:
Blair: Directive - throughout the entire show, she has shown the most qualities of being a leader. In essence she is the leader of the group because she is very convincing and she will do what she wants regardless of what anyone else says. The only reason she seems to be the leader is because most of the schemes are her idea. Throughout high school they called her "queen B" because she always had a group of minions that followed her around and did whatever she said. She also is very directive toward her housekeeper Derota. She barks out orders and expects them to be followed right away. With her friends she is always very convincing on why she is doing what she is doing. She always has a good reason whether it is with good intentions or bad intentions. Regardless of how they feel, she always has some task for them an directs them in the way she wants them to carry it out.
Chuck: Clarify - He is the most powerful of all the character. He is the soul beneficiary of Bass Industries. He gets what he wants when he wants it. He is a smart business man for how young he is. Although he is not as rash and outspoken as Blair, people give him what he wants. He always says "let me make this clear." Even if he is in the wrong he always wins in the end because people are intimidated by his power. He has hundreds of employees that are under his wing and he always makes it clear to them what he wants and how he wants them to do it.
Serena: Supportive - Serena is the most compassionate character of them all. Although she has money like the rest of them and is the most famous of them all, she always tries to find a way to be there for her friends. She has been through the most out of all the characters. She was sent away to boarding school in her first couple years of high school so when she comes back she must try and redeem her reputation. She has toned down a lot and has become sympathetic towards anyone going through some sort of battle. Although she remains selfish in her own ways her intentions are always good. She is a mentor to her brother and has become the leader of her family since her mother cant really be trusted by anyone.
Nate: Participative: Nate has the least of the leadership abilities. He tends to be the follower of the group and participative in all of their schemes. He has the connections to get things done and has lead the group every once in a while. He always has a purpose in whatever their scheme might be for the episode.
Dan: Goal Oriented- Dan is the outsider of the group. He is the only one who comes from Brooklyn and has high goals towards becoming a writer. His family has money only because his dad married Serena's mom. In the beginning of the show you wouldn't catch Dan in one of the groups petty schemes. He was always found in the library or doing something academic oriented. As he has become more acquainted with the upper east side and gotten to be good friends with most of the group he is becoming apart of more and more schemes. He always has the ultimate goal in mind. He never lets the group get off track. He is motivator in that he is the most logical one of them all and doesn't let them get side tracked on what they are ultimately trying to accomplish.
Path Goal Theory:
Blair: Directive - throughout the entire show, she has shown the most qualities of being a leader. In essence she is the leader of the group because she is very convincing and she will do what she wants regardless of what anyone else says. The only reason she seems to be the leader is because most of the schemes are her idea. Throughout high school they called her "queen B" because she always had a group of minions that followed her around and did whatever she said. She also is very directive toward her housekeeper Derota. She barks out orders and expects them to be followed right away. With her friends she is always very convincing on why she is doing what she is doing. She always has a good reason whether it is with good intentions or bad intentions. Regardless of how they feel, she always has some task for them an directs them in the way she wants them to carry it out.
Chuck: Clarify - He is the most powerful of all the character. He is the soul beneficiary of Bass Industries. He gets what he wants when he wants it. He is a smart business man for how young he is. Although he is not as rash and outspoken as Blair, people give him what he wants. He always says "let me make this clear." Even if he is in the wrong he always wins in the end because people are intimidated by his power. He has hundreds of employees that are under his wing and he always makes it clear to them what he wants and how he wants them to do it.
Serena: Supportive - Serena is the most compassionate character of them all. Although she has money like the rest of them and is the most famous of them all, she always tries to find a way to be there for her friends. She has been through the most out of all the characters. She was sent away to boarding school in her first couple years of high school so when she comes back she must try and redeem her reputation. She has toned down a lot and has become sympathetic towards anyone going through some sort of battle. Although she remains selfish in her own ways her intentions are always good. She is a mentor to her brother and has become the leader of her family since her mother cant really be trusted by anyone.
Nate: Participative: Nate has the least of the leadership abilities. He tends to be the follower of the group and participative in all of their schemes. He has the connections to get things done and has lead the group every once in a while. He always has a purpose in whatever their scheme might be for the episode.
Dan: Goal Oriented- Dan is the outsider of the group. He is the only one who comes from Brooklyn and has high goals towards becoming a writer. His family has money only because his dad married Serena's mom. In the beginning of the show you wouldn't catch Dan in one of the groups petty schemes. He was always found in the library or doing something academic oriented. As he has become more acquainted with the upper east side and gotten to be good friends with most of the group he is becoming apart of more and more schemes. He always has the ultimate goal in mind. He never lets the group get off track. He is motivator in that he is the most logical one of them all and doesn't let them get side tracked on what they are ultimately trying to accomplish.
Contingency Theory vs.Situational Theory...
Contingency Theory...
A leader's effectiveness is based on "situational contingency" which is a result of two factors: leadership style and situational favorableness.
1. Leadership Style
In order to determine whether you are a task oriented or a behavior oriented leader, there is a test called the LPC test that you can take. You score your least preferred co worker on 8 measures. What you are determines what their score turned out to be. You are the opposite of their leadership style.
2. Situational Favorableness
There is no ideal leaders. Both types of leaders can be effective but in different situations. A task oriented leader is especially effective in a crisis situation. Blue collar workers generally work better with this type of leader. Positions I feel need a task oriented leader: fireman, policeman, surgeon, politician. A behavior oriented leader is especially effective where leader member relations are good. It fits well with Research Scientist. They like the freedom to do as they please and appreciate their leaders trust in their abilities. Positions I feel need a behavior oriented leader: teachers, scientists, technology workers, actors.
Situational Leadership Theory...
Developing management style is an ongoing process. This style not only has to fit the employee's personality but it also has to fit the department and how the work must get done. To be a successful leader, the leader must not only exert the leadership style that comes naturally but also uses the styles that fit the current situation. There are four basic leadership style behaviors...
1. high task - low relationship (telling). Examples: teacher to students
2. high task - high relationship (selling). Examples: sales manager to a sales coordinator
3. low task - high relationship (participating). Examples: principle to teacher
4. low task - low relationship (delegating). Examples: school advisor to student
Task behavior is the extent to where the leader tells the subordinate what to do. Relationship behavior is the extent to where there is two way communications on what is the most effective path to take in order to get the job done. The most effective style depends on what the readiness of the employees is. The manger must adapt to this in order to have an effective team. There are two components to readiness.
a. ability - knowledge, experience and skill the employee has in order to get the task done.
b. willingness - the extent to which the employee has confidence, commitment and motivation to the specific task
What the two have in common: both put a strong emphasis toward the leader adapting to a certain situation. They both agree in that the leader must exert his naturally ability in leading his team but also take in consideration the situation. They both also say that evaluating your employees personality and where they are at in their career is important.
What the two don't have in common: where they differ is in what situations to take into account. contingency theory says to take the external situation into account when leading the employees and situational says to take into account the internal situation of the employees.
A leader's effectiveness is based on "situational contingency" which is a result of two factors: leadership style and situational favorableness.
1. Leadership Style
In order to determine whether you are a task oriented or a behavior oriented leader, there is a test called the LPC test that you can take. You score your least preferred co worker on 8 measures. What you are determines what their score turned out to be. You are the opposite of their leadership style.
2. Situational Favorableness
There is no ideal leaders. Both types of leaders can be effective but in different situations. A task oriented leader is especially effective in a crisis situation. Blue collar workers generally work better with this type of leader. Positions I feel need a task oriented leader: fireman, policeman, surgeon, politician. A behavior oriented leader is especially effective where leader member relations are good. It fits well with Research Scientist. They like the freedom to do as they please and appreciate their leaders trust in their abilities. Positions I feel need a behavior oriented leader: teachers, scientists, technology workers, actors.
Situational Leadership Theory...
Developing management style is an ongoing process. This style not only has to fit the employee's personality but it also has to fit the department and how the work must get done. To be a successful leader, the leader must not only exert the leadership style that comes naturally but also uses the styles that fit the current situation. There are four basic leadership style behaviors...
1. high task - low relationship (telling). Examples: teacher to students
2. high task - high relationship (selling). Examples: sales manager to a sales coordinator
3. low task - high relationship (participating). Examples: principle to teacher
4. low task - low relationship (delegating). Examples: school advisor to student
Task behavior is the extent to where the leader tells the subordinate what to do. Relationship behavior is the extent to where there is two way communications on what is the most effective path to take in order to get the job done. The most effective style depends on what the readiness of the employees is. The manger must adapt to this in order to have an effective team. There are two components to readiness.
a. ability - knowledge, experience and skill the employee has in order to get the task done.
b. willingness - the extent to which the employee has confidence, commitment and motivation to the specific task
What the two have in common: both put a strong emphasis toward the leader adapting to a certain situation. They both agree in that the leader must exert his naturally ability in leading his team but also take in consideration the situation. They both also say that evaluating your employees personality and where they are at in their career is important.
What the two don't have in common: where they differ is in what situations to take into account. contingency theory says to take the external situation into account when leading the employees and situational says to take into account the internal situation of the employees.
My Classmates and Ledership...
I spent a good amount of time reading through my classmates blogs and found some very interesting points. There was one that I connected with the most and that was Heather's point of view. She says a good leader can work with many different personalities and they can still connect with everyone. She also says that leaders can be born, but they can also learn learn the traits through experiences. I agree with that completely. I feel that leaders can be born but they can also learn traits as they experience different hings in their lifetime. I also agree with what she says about what leaders aren't...they don't look inside themselves to discover the weaknesses and strengths that possess. I am a strong believer in working deeply with ones self to find out what makes a person tick. Taking the time and having the strength to do that enables people to know why they do the things that do and change the things that are negative about them. One blog that I didn't connect with was Caroline's blog. While reading her posts I could hear the caregiver in her. She is very oriented towards a motherly type of leadership, focused on people's feelings and making sure that everyone feels good. I am not like that at all, I am sensitive to others' feelings but I tend to be more rash when in a leadership position. I think that if you spend too much time focused on how others feel about the situation you focus and sight of the ultimate goal. Although I don't agree with approaching leadership in this manner, I feel that there is a lot to be learned from a leader like this. I need to be more compassionate when dealing with subordinates because ultimately an A team leads in the best possible way.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Ruler...Lover...Magician...
I am at my best when I am sensuous, alive, vital and full of love for others and for life. When problems arise I look to see how relationships have broken down and heal it through communication and helping people to share what is bothering them. I tend to notice people, objects, activities, settings and experiences that evoke love, passion and sensuality. I want to guard against my tendency to play favorites and exclude people. I like and live all variations on the love story. As a leader I am passionate, charismatic and intense. I want to be seen as attractive, not only physically but in every way. Other appreciate my loving nature, my passion and my friendliness.
When I am at my best I am charismatic, transformative and a healing presence. When problems arise I first change my attitude, expand my perspectives and adjust my behavior to create a ripple effect. I tend to notice serendipity, synchronicity and the interconnectedness of events. I want to be on guard when my charisma starts to manipulates others and overwhelm people with my high expectations. I live and like stories about the education of people who do miraculous things. as a leader, I am a visionary who energizes others by inspiring them to be true to their deeper values and work together to make a wonderfully transformative dream come true. I like to be seen as mysterious and often times as unnerving and disconnected. Others appreciate my vision and charisma.
Its amazing to me the patterns that I see in all of these descriptions. All of them put together are exactly how I see myself. The are portrayed in the order that I connect with the most so I first see most of myself in the ruler, then the lover and then the magician. It feels good to get a grasp an idea of who I am and why I do what I do on a day to day basis.
The assessment also gives you the results for the archetype that you are least like. I couldn't believe it when I read it because it something that I struggle with the most in my life and that is letting go...
This person is at their best when letting go and moving on. When problems arise they gain the wisdom to change what they can and accept what they cannot. They tend to notice and focus on the crisis at hand. They need to be on guard with their tendency to lash out. The live and like stories of action, with a lot of destruction and car scenes. As a leader, they are good at re engineering organizations. They want to be seen as whole. Others appreciate the way their suffering places them outside the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)