Romanczuk’s Self-Analysis 3, Leadership Challenged
Self-analysis instruments completed so
far, and what they tell about my leadership preferences, ability, style:
See below for the instruments completed and my
“scores” on each. What they indicate about my leadership style is very hands
off. My leadership ability should be minimal considering that I’d rather dance
naked in a pit of poisonous snakes than hold a ten minute conversation with a
subordinate. My leadership preferences (other than the hands off thing mentioned),
are not as clearly evident from the instrument results as I would have thought
they would be. That I prefer to direct as little as possible is somewhat
obvious. That I prefer to lead by serving isn’t. In the Leadership course (and
even before it), I’ve tried to present myself as a servant leader and a subtle
leader.
What do the instruments completed so far
tell about me as part of a group or community?
What the self-analysis instruments tell me that
isn’t new is that I’m an introvert with slightly above average intellect.
Although I tend to be and prefer to be a “lone wolf,” when I do become part of
a group (either by necessity or force), I’m slow to get to know people but
quick to work my strengths and contribute what any would think is more than my
“fair share” of the load. What I’ve never been able to make myself do is use
the group work as an opportunity to work on my weak areas: public speaking, one-to-one conversations,
and brainstorming come to mind.
Leadership Practices Inventory, 8-1-03:
Of a possible 6 to 60 points for each of these
Kouzes and Posner sections of the LPI, on the self-test I earned the following
for each:
| Raw | Percentile | |
| Model the Way | 31 | 3 |
| Inspire a Shared Vision | 26 | 4 |
| Challenge the Process | 45 | 43 |
| Enable Others to Act | 45 | 24 |
| Encourage the Heart | 28 | 3 |
These raw numbers don’t sound too bad, until they
are converted to percentiles. Frankly, I don’t believe my answers put me at
single digit percentiles for three of the five areas. Either those in the norm
group are all full of themselves or I was unduly harsh on myself.
Either way, that “Challenge the Process” and “Enable
Others to Act” came out as the top two is probably fair to my leadership style.
Kouzes and Posner’s (2002) Challenge the Process part included chapters titled
“Search for Opportunities” and “Experiment and Take Risks.” Although I wouldn’t consider myself a risk
taker, I rarely leave any process alone but tend to tinker with improvements
small and great. Kouzes and Posner’s Enable Others to Act part included
chapters titled “Foster Collaboration” and “Strengthen Others.” Not only am I a strong believer in formal
and on-the-job training, my current position requires me to be the
collaboration bridge for special education work being done between teachers at
separate schools, and even parents and teachers. I am the SpEd website
administrator and coordinator for both the SpEd Parent Advisory Committee and
SpEd Lead Teachers Group.
Emotional Intelligence, 7-1-03:
I earned 121 on Emode’s online Emotional
Intelligence test (www.emode.com/tests/eiq/). I assume that makes me a little
more than a standard deviation above the norm, assuming this is scaled like IQ
tests. However, this was a weird little test in which I was required to “read”
people’s moods from small, head shot only pictures on the website. There were
some multiple choice questions, too. The distributors wanted money for a full
blown analysis of my results, but I’m not sure how worthwhile these results
are, or how worthwhile the whole idea is, for that matter.
Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation-Behavior, 6-21-03:
My FIRO-B results table looks like this:
|
|
Inclusion |
Control |
Affection |
Totals |
|
Expressed Behavior |
2 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
|
Wanted Behavior |
1 |
6 |
0 |
7 |
|
Totals |
3 |
8 |
0 |
11 |
This instrument measures “how you typically behave
with other people and how you expect them to act toward you” (Waterman &
Rogers, 1996, p. 2). The “expressed” areas reflect how much one prefers to
initiate behaviors and the “wanted” reflects how much one prefers others to
initiate. These are the middle two rows above; the three middle
columns—inclusion, control, and affection—supply the other half of the FIRO-B’s
utility. Inclusion describes how much effort one makes to have others in his or
her life. Control covers how much influence and responsibility one wants.
Affection is both how close one wants to be with others and how close one wants
them to be with him or her.
With Inclusion low in both areas and affection even
lower (okay, the two zeros surprise even me!), it’s pretty clear I want to be
left alone and tend to leave people be as well. Although I do come off as cold
or unapproachable, especially early in relationships, people who are around
long enough come to realize I am a lot more caring and friendly than I
initially appear. Page 29 of the booklet gets this part right, and is right
about my failure to factor in the “human element,” but is dead wrong about my experiencing
loneliness. Never have, never will. I enjoy being alone, have always been my
own best friend and worst enemy, and often spend some of my time alone
preparing for the times I’ll be with people.
The Control row, low expressed and a medium high wanted,
nails me even better than the other two areas do. The “At Your Best” paragraphs
give good suggestions for trying to overcome the down side of how I am with
people and at work, but the first “area of possible challenge” really jumped
out at me. I’ve always been unclear about how ambitious I am. It helps explain
why I’m in a doctoral program when the only jobs I really want are the one I
already have and the one I had prior to this one.
Study of Values, 5-17-03:
My totals for each columnar area of this instrument
(with the correction row figured in) are:
| Theoretical | 46 (discovery of truth; organizing knowledge) |
| Economic | 39
(production of what is useful; the business person)
|
| Aesthetic | 42
(form, harmony; the artistic, beautiful parts of life)
|
| Social | 22
(people-person; love of others as chief, unselfish)
|
| Political | 33
(competitive; power over people and situations)
|
| Religious | 58
(unity with cosmos; withdrawal from secular world)
|
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 8-28-03:
My most recent MBTI numbers came out to:
Introversion 41 Energy from inner world of ideas
Intuition 11 Filter
information through "what might be"
Thinking 9 Logical, structured organization of info
Judging 51 Preference
for a planned, organized life
In previous scorings, the Introversion has been the
highest, followed by Judging, with Intuition and Thinking always toying with
single digits or teens at most. I have always been an INTJ, though. In
considering the other two INTJs in our cohort (Monty and Elton), I can see both
the similarity the type indicator is getting at and the differences in
personality it allows for. Our cohort
overall is INTJ as well.
Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument,
10-26-99:
With 30 total points distributed among the 5 areas
(0 to 12 points possible for any area), my scores broke out like this:
Raw Percentile Booklet Quote (p. 11)
Competing 7 70 “Might
makes right.”
Collaborating 3
6 “Two heads are better than one.”
Compromising 8 70 “Split the difference.”
Avoiding 5 34 “Leave
well enough alone.”
Accommodating 7 84 “Kill your enemies with kindness.”
The thirty questions on this instrument, with only
two alternatives for each, ask that the testee consider the situation presented
and select his or her most likely response. I took it shortly after my return
from Albuquerque, when I wasn’t quite clicking with the Oak Ridge training
development group. That I came off as overbearing as I was starting to feel at
that time should not have surprised me. I was let go three months after
completing the Thomas-Kilmann.
What jumps out at me now is that although the norm
groups for this and the LPI are similar (middle, upper level business and
government managers in this case), my percentiles are astronomical here when
contrasted with most of the LPI. The booklet accompanying the Thomas-Kilmann
instrument closes with how to interpret each area if it is either high or low.
Since compromising is my highest and collaborating is my lowest, looking at
just these two sets of hints is most useful. The high compromise questions warn
against losing sight of the larger picture and making a game of the bargaining
process. (Doesn’t sound much like me, does it?) The low collaborating questions advise seeing differences as
opportunities and being sure subordinates are committed to my decisions/policies.
Well, this doesn’t sound much like me either and it’s no wonder I was laid off
a short time later. It’s just as well, because I didn’t like the work or myself
very much by then and I’m belonging much better back in K-12 education,
especially SpEd.
What strengths can I contribute to a
group/community, based on these self-analysis instrument results?
I’m
a details person, given to nuance and subtlety, often to the exclusion of what
is more obvious and pressing. Since most of learning is solitary, detail
finding work, this obliviousness of focus helps most of the time. A lot of
group work is writing, even though writing is a solitary activity. I tend to
write up more than my share of group summaries.
What are my weak/trouble areas according
to the profile results?
Verbal, oral communication gets short shrift. Even
though I have always been aware of this and working to improve it, it remains
work. If I let myself revert to the way I tend to be, no one would see or hear
from me.
How do I see my role in this community of
learners, the Graff cohort?
I want to be information filter, sorter, gatherer.
My masters degree was in Information Management and I’ve always gotten a charge
out of getting information I’ve dug up to the person or people who need it or
can use it. That’s one role; the other is peace maker. What isn’t obvious (or
maybe just not obvious to me) in these scores was obvious to my mom when she
named me. Jeffrey means “God’s Peace” and I like to take in and calm the
currents of frustration and friction and doubt. Sometimes this is as mediator
but more often it’s more subtle than that, in just being a listener or a
friend.
How is this role the same or different
from how I see myself in other communities (work, church, home, etc.)?
The information manager aspect extends to my work as
SpEd administrator and even to my church work (as keeper of my church’s lending
library and website (http://www.stanneorthodoxchurch.org/). At home, my wife
counts on me to be our files manager and writer. Although the family I grew up
in has many good writers, I’m the one would tends to keep us in touch this way.
I wrote the eulogy for my dad, for example.
What do I contribute to the cohort?
Not as much as I get. Prayer mostly. Some computer
help. Some clarification of what’s required and how big or small it is or
should be.
How do others contribute to my
growth/development?
I’m being drawn out, which in my case is always a
good thing. It takes a cohort because in the short span of a semester I’d
withhold a lot and probably get away with it. However, there isn’t much hiding
space among ten people over a three year span. They are reinforcing that I’m in
the right place in good ways and in bad. Good in the sense that K-12 Ed Admin
is for me and I probably never should have left it. Bad because I’m insulating
myself as SpEd only and the stories I get about general education tend to
confirm my resolve and commitment to remain SpEd only.
How does my profile contribute to my
leadership style?
Servant leader, reinforced by the high Religious
numbers on the Study of Values. Eclectic leader, reinforced by my weird and
varied background. Subtle leader, reinforced by the weak social skills and high
preference to be left alone.
References
Kouzes, J. M.
& Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas, K. W.
& Kilmann, R. H. (1974). The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.
Tuxedo: Xicom.
Waterman, J.
A. & Rogers, J. (1996). Introduction to the FIRO-B. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.