Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
1. Give examples of behaviors that provide evidence you possess at least two of these competencies. Does/will your possession of these competencies make you a better leader? Explain.
An example of the evidence to the increasing reality that as a leader and someone entrusted to do persuasion in the kind of influence I do, I employ emotional competencies as well as insightful strategies. According to Kramer in Beyond Max Weber: Emotional Intelligence and public leadership, “relationships are the DNA of governance” which immediately brings to mind the full implication that it binds and runs public offices. I believe that I have what every leader would covet which is sufficient emotional intelligence. Kramer succinctly points to the American bureaucratic system and the failure to function effectively because the effects of individualism has tragically influenced and impacted people’s ability and interest to build and sustain relationships. The study by Kramer develops on the idea that the relationships mentioned hinge on the emotional competencies of people (Kramer website).
2. Identify at least one of these traits you would like to develop. Explain how a higher level of competency in this area could make you a better leader.
I would like to develop this area further despite the fact that I somehow know that I have the natural ability to feel and understand people and get into their shoes. I need to know that leadership is also more than understanding people; it is also leading them to where they hardly are able to visualize to getting into. That is, helping them to transform their ideas into workable outputs towards individual and group attainments is a leadership trait that is still difficult to achieve by any manager and leader.
3. What is your overall opinion of this perspective? Should companies embrace this perspective? If so, what practical steps should they take to put it in practice? How can companies avoid any ethical issues associated with limitations?
In Peter Northouse, author of Leadership: Theory and Practice observed the revival of an all-encompassing skills-based model of leadership distinguished by a map for how to reach efficient leadership in organizations (Northouse, 2004). He recommended that the classification of specific skills which can be improved by training has an intuitive appeal: “When leadership is framed as a set of skills, it becomes a process that people can study and practice to become better at their jobs” (Northouse, 2004). He also suggests that although the skills-based approach claims not to be a trait model, it includes individual attributes that look a great deal like traits.
The act of leadership is also an exercise of moral reasoning. In their book Unmasking Administrative Evil, Guy Adams and Danny Balfour caution against elevating the scientific-analytical mindset higher than all other forms of rationality. Even as the rise of “technical rationality led inevitably to specialized, expert knowledge, the very life blood of the professional,” it also “spawned unintended consequences in the areas of morals and ethics as the science-based technical rationality undermined normative judgments and relegated ethical considerations to afterthoughts” (Adams & Balfour, 2004).
Distinguished scholar Ronald Heifetz on the other hand, developed a definition of leadership that takes values into account. He maintains that we should look at leadership as more than a means to organizational effectiveness. Efficiency means getting achievable decisions that execute the goals of the organization. “This definition has the benefit of being generally applicable, but it provides no real guide to determine the nature or formation of those goals.” (Heifetz, 1994). Heifetz went on to say that values such as “liberty, equality, human welfare, justice, and community” are inculcated with first-rate leaders (Heifetz, 1994). It is a necessity then, the infusion of these principles into the leader and from the leader into the organization.