Leadership Reflection..based on Leadership conference at UH...Post 2

Day 1:
Team and Creativity event:
When I first entered the plenary room, the class strength looked much more than usual. Usually I sit in the middle or end rows. As I was late and strength was quite good, most of the chairs seemed already occupied except few chairs that were quite close to the consultants. I sat almost opposite to Simon. Since Simon and I were sitting quite close to each other, we exchanged lot of eye contacts and nods. When he said that we are going to work as a temporary learning organisation. I was bit unsure what does he mean by that. Though, I did not ask him that. After few minutes, he said, if you have any questions so far, feel free to ask. I asked him though with great hesitation that what does he mean by temporary learning organisation. I felt confident after asking this question. This confidence carried along with me throughout the event and I never felt like hesitant in speaking and airing my views during the whole event. In retrospection, I feel, my argument that day with Zareen, Israna and after that, my being late and sitting directly opposite to Simon had some sort “butterfly effect” for me (Stacey, 2007:190). I believe my experience of this event would have been much different had these two incidents not happened.
After that, when Simon asked us to stand on a continuum of 0 % to 100 %. I and Zareen were quite close to each other on that line. I thought, I and Zareen would fall in the same group. I did not want that as I thought it would lead to some more heated arguments between me and Zareen. I was feeling very vulnerable at that moment and was thinking if she comes to same group as I was in, it would lead to lot of chaos. Simon applied some more combinations to form random groups and I was not in the same group as Zareen was in. It is quite strange to me why these thoughts were coming to my mind and how I was consciously and unconsciously trying to choose which group I want to be in. It is sounding bit "eerie" to me at this moment. I could make more sense of my behaviour after coming across Tuckman’s model of group development. Tuckman’s model of group development suggests there are five stages of group development namely, forming, storming, Norming, performing, adjourning. Formation is the stage that characterised by the diffidence and shyness among the group members. I was bit anxious about the group members I would be working with. I felt much better when I knew the members of my team. As I came to know about other team members I had some feeling of belongingness to each other. There was a sudden transition from the state of anxiety and confusion to a more comfortable state when I came to know about other team members of group 3 for the video preparations team work.
In my view, ours (group 3) was a very happy and productive group. We had a good discussion about transformation leadership but our video and presentation was not really that good in my view. Tim was our team’s consultant. I found his presence bit uncomfortable in the beginning but I think, after some time, I became used to his presence. Simon was also coming and going in between the discussion. That was very irritating for me. I did not really understand what he was trying to observe in those 2-3 minutes he would sit in and listen to our discussion.
I feel I took leadership roles in the beginning as I tried to facilitate discussion but I was making some sort of conscious choice that I do not want to dominate the group. I think, it was also sort of an unspoken rule that no one would take out rightly leadership position. I see two reasons for this. One is that Group 3 was discussing transformational leadership and it was a belief that in this type of leadership no one attempts to dominate the group. And, second, is that in the beginning when Lanre said that the group should appoint a leader, I said if the group appoints a leader in the beginning, it might happen that we would all look up to him for all the ideas and approval rather than coming on some group consensus. My point of view was bought by the group and the group moved to discussion and never bothered to appoint the leader again. Though, once the task of shooting a video was done, group members felt that in the end we required a leader who could guide us through.
Reflecting on why I did not agree on appointing a leader, I think, It is because of my belief when someone is appointed as a leader, other members would just listen to what leader is saying and follow the leader rather than also expressing their own opinions and giving a challenge to the leader and his ideas. I believe more in everyone expressing their own opinions and based on reasoning and argument, it should be decided how a task should be done. Now, I feel, it is very idealistic sort of situation when all group members are expressing their views openly and participating with enthusiasm. In my experience, almost every group I have worked with some members would be more knowledgeable and dedicated to task than others and usually these people emerge as a leader, some would do work honestly when they know what is suppose to be done , and some would try to contribute in some superficial manner.
In group 3, there was lot of confusion about what the task is and how the task should be done. I wanted to do something more creative and challenging. But, I went along what Andy had suggested and everyone in the group agreed to this. Though, I did mention that I am with the group on this task but this task is not very motivating for me. This prompts me to think why I did not resist the idea of making a video on a change program. This could be because Andy is a part timer and I had not spoken much with him earlier, and subconsciously, it is possible that I could not strongly oppose to him as he was quite senior than me. Another reason that I neither had motivation nor energy to take this challenge of making some creative video. I am not sure but this could also be because we were all thinking of group cohesion and togetherness that resulted in a bad decision making termed as “Groupthink”. Janis (1972) defines Groupthink as "a way of deliberating that group members use when their desire for unanimity overrides their motivation to assess all available plans of action." Schafer and Crichlow (1996) further argue that faulty decision making has its roots in leadership style, traditional group procedures, and patterns of group behavior. I think, in group 3 leadership style, group procedures and pattern led to a faulty decision making.
Once the video part was done, the consultant, Tim, gave us some remark about the ‘generation gap’. What I understood from Tim’s remark that there were some subgroups in the group. One was of more experienced, older sub group of Andy and Debby. I think, to some extent, Tim was correct that Andy and Debby supported each other’s ideas quite often. I also felt that my ideas were supported a lot by Naznin and there was some sort of pairing between me and Naznin. This pairing could also be because we are quite appreciative of each other’s style of working and how we go about our studies of Mba.
Regarding presentation, I was really not interested in presenting. I did not really understand what the video was all about and I was feeling very tired. I encouraged Naznin to present and even supported her to present on group’s behalf. I also told her that it would be a good learning experience for her. She agreed to present with Andy. I think, Debby supported Andy that he should present. Andy was a natural candidate to present as he was the one who suggested the situation of the video and everyone assumed that he would do a good job on this. It is interesting to me to reflect and see this pairing behaviour going on between me and Naznin and in other subgroup Andy and Debby.
After all the presentations were done, I and even most of the other participants appreciated the video and presentation on controlled styled of leadership concerned about efficiency and rationality. I feel the message was so clear in the video what kind of leadership they were showing. The video was also made very creatively and roles were well played. In my view, it is also probably because it is so easy to understand this kind of leadership and the group who received this task had a clear advantage as far as understanding the style of leadership is concerned. I even mentioned this during the reflection session on presentations. In our group, we were not sure for first one hour what exactly transformational leadership is and who are role models of this kind of leadership. We thought of Ricardo Semler and Steve jobs as kind of transformation leaders. Richard Branson name also came up. First, we were not sure how this kind of leadership can be represented and second, we were confused how our role models show this kind of leadership. When I think of this, it is no surprise to me that other groups’ could not do well in task of making a video on the theme of transformation, task, and distributive leadership. Regarding this one of my friend’s remark I still remember. When I asked her after the videos were made and before the presentations, what is distributive leadership. She was in the group who was given distributive leadership task. Her answer was that I just don’t know.