Mid Mid

fabian491

Avada Kedavra!

Looking over Blanchard's Situational Leadership Model, it gives an explanation for why I really liked one of my managers at The Wizarding World of Harry Potter and why I really hated another, we will call him "He Who Must Not be Named." The one I didn't like had a very directive style of managing which would not change for different people or different situations. Meanwhile, the manager that I liked would be couching, supporting or delegating me (depending on the situation). I was very dedicated to my job and the guests. I also was very competent and even excelled at my role, enough so that I created a powerpoint training/retraining presentation for HTM 498 that the Three Broomsticks uses and used for inspiration in creating others for different positions at the restaurant. If He Who Must Not be Named payed any attention to the actual people working for him, he would know how to adapt to them and their needs. That is something  a good leader does.

GET LOST!

I watched an episode of Lost for the first time. When I am assigned to watch a show as an assignment, I like to use the pilot episode just because it typically has a lot of character development and tries to get you to know the main characters fast. Lost was no exception. There were the obvious main characters Jack and Kate and people that you know will be integral parts of the story. The Leader Member Exchange Theory (LMX) states that there are three phases of leadership. The first phase is "stranger." There is a contractual relationship. The follower does not trust the leader but is willing to follow for certain benefits. The second phase is "acquaintance." This is the testing phase of the relationship and when people begin to trust each other. The third and final phase is "partnership." This is the step of reciprocating influences for the interest of both sides. All these steps can be seen in the first episode of Lost. Being stuck on a deserted island together is like their contractual relationship. They can either work together, or die (which they do not know yet because they still think help is on the way in the first episode). Jack and Kate's relationship moves quickly through the LMX phases. Right now, they are in a total partnership...and in the the future maybe even passed that stage ;) *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge* However, you can see that their relationship with other characters is still in phase 1 or 2. They reached phase 3 because he trusted her to sew up his injury and he opened up to her. Then they went on an adventure to find the cockpit of the plane. Through openness and experiences, they built their relationship and that is the best way to do it because friends don't keep secrets ahha

I have failed you!

While reading through other student blogs, I came across Kirsten's. While there I thought, "man this is just like my blog...but more detailed hahaha." We both look at leadership as something that does not have to be a title given or a position voted on. It can just happen naturally like the group of friends that look up to Regina George. We also only agree with the trait based leadership theory to a certain extent. We believe that leaders can be born or developed later in life. One good point that she made and I never really thought to hard about was that people born with "leadership traits" does not guarantee them to be great leaders. It is easy to make that statement if those people do not want to be leaders, but she makes the point that a person born with leadership traits may lack other abilities such as delegating or may have a habit of being condescending. So now it makes me see leadership as a bigger picture. It is not just about certain traits, abilities, or skills but having a harmonious and successful mix of them.

I guess I get a 50% on this post. Reading through others blogs, I could not find any significant differences in views. There were people with different archetypes then me but I did not learn anything about myself that I did not already know. For the most part I agreed  with peoples views on leadership as a whole and on their thoughts about certain theories.

Next Stop London!

An interesting observation I made from my actual results from the PMAI is that I scored very low as a Seeker. A Seeker is someone that is adventurous, independent, and self-sufficient. Although I do consider myself a bit adventurous, I am not very independent or self-sufficient so I am not surprised that I scored low in this category. The interesting thing to me is that I have recently been thinking about becoming more of a Seeker type. For the past few days I have been thinking about getting a job and saving all the money in order to travel the world, even if I have to do it alone. Not really having thought thoroughly about myself lacking Seeker qualities, I wonder if I have been seriously considering this because subconsciously I know that I am not very independent or self-sufficient. Then again, it could also just be because I have never been out of the country and want to travel very badly. Either way, after reaching my goal of traveling outside of the country, I think I will be able to put some more points under the Seeker category.

The Innocent, Caregiving Jester

After taking the PMAI assessment, I was not wowed. It gave me a ton of information about each archetype but I don't think it said much about me personally. Sure it ranked me in many different categories to show where I stood, but I feel like they were generic write ups that are just forwarded once the system knows what archetypes you are most and least like. When I took the PRINT assessment in HTM 301, I was blown away. I felt that it told me so much about myself that I either knew, knew but couldn't put into words, or never really thought about. I think the success of the PRINT was being able to mix two categories together to make a more in depth evaluation of someones characteristics. I wish that the PMAI mixed different categories together to make the assessment more personal. Right now I just feel like I know the definition of each archetype.

Pros y Cons

There is a theory that is being spread out to the universe called trait based leadership. Basically, the trait based leadership theory says that people have to be born with certain traits that make them a leader. I do not agree with this theory on bit. I think that a pro for this theory is that it makes it easier for some people to become a leader. However, the biggest con for me is that, if this theory is true, no one can develop the skills to be a leader if they were not born with certain traits. I think that with enough drive and determination, most things can be learned and people can excel in them. Some pro athletes were not born with the natural talent to play their sport, but now they are payed millions of dollars to do it because they wanted it bad enough. I think the same thing applies to wanting to be a great leader...maybe not the millions of dollars though.