Words: 2527
This analysis concludes with a review of my leadership skills and abilities and an evaluation of the utility of this course and the organizational behavior assessments in helping me become an effective manager/leader. Introduction My former graduate advisor, mentor, and friend, Dry. Clifford Harding, MD, PhD, is an exemplary leader. As a manager/leader, my goal is to develop the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that I have witnessed in Dry. Harding. This study explores the organizational power identified in Dry.
Hoarding’s leadership style and how his legitimate power permits significant contingency factors Colloquial, Lupine, and Wesson, 201 la, p. 455). Although Dry. Harding leadership style employed a number of influence tactics, as my mentor, he routinely used consultation tactics (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 456 – 458). Dry. Hoarding’s numerous leadership roles suggest that he uses all four leader decision-making styles (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 486 – 489). His role as a Principle Investigator (Pl) follows transformational leadership principles (Colloquial et al. 201 la, p. 496). Dry. Hoarding’s genuine honesty, trustworthiness, and desire to assist my development into an effective, independent investigator were influential factors hat positively affected my job performance and organizational commitment. Although guided leadership is important and Dry. Harding is an exemplary leader, several leader substitutes and neutralizes decreased Dry. Harding leadership influence (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 504 – 506), which will be explored in this paper.
Context During my life have encountered a number of leaders and mentors, but one that is exemplary as a leader, mentor, and friend was my graduate advisor and mentor, Clifford Harding, MD, PhD. Dry. Harding took on a number of leadership roles at Case Western Reserve University. He is Professor and Chair of Pathology. He runs his own research lab in the areas of immunology, oncology, and infectious disease. He is the Director of the Medical Scientist Training Program (MOST) and the founding Chair and current Director of the Immunology Training Program (TIP) at Case. Dry.
Harding sits on several scientific society and journal editorial boards and serves on several NIH grant sections. Discussion and Analysis Dry. Harding is an exemplary leader and scientist in the fields of immunology oncology and infectious disease. Dry. Harding leads with organizational and personal power. Dry. Harding legitimate power, as defined by Colloquial et al. (201 la), is derived from his positions as Professor and Chair of the Department of Pathology, Director of the MOST and TIP, Pl of is own lab, and numerous positions in the broader scientific community (p. 52 – 453). His positions of authority support his reward and coercive powers to effectively lead (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 452 – 453). His reward power is demonstrated by his control over departmental funds, pay raises, research directions, job assignments, employee evaluations, and student admission or exclusion to graduate programs. Under Dry. Hoarding’s leadership, grant applications in the Department of Pathology increased 80 percent over the last three years (Clifford, 2011).
He has coercive power to expel graduate students for misconduct or poor academic performance, as well as fire, demote, reprimand, or decrease an employee’s pay as forms of punishments. A number of Dry. Hoarding’s career successes are derived from personal power, noted by Colloquial et al. (201 la) as expert and referent powers (p. 453 – 454). Dry. Harding is an accomplished pathologist and researcher in immunology, infectious disease, and oncology, with more than 70 peer reviewed journal publications (Clifford, 2011).
His vast medical and scientific skills, expertise, and knowledge give him expert power in the scientific and medical communities worldwide. Dry. Hoarding’s expert power is a source of his referent power. Members of the scientific and medical community not only respect his expertise and knowledge, they have grown to know and respect him personally. Even my wife, a 2009 graduate of the MOST, can attest to his honesty, trustworthiness, sincerity, and down to earth personality. Dry.
Harding is respected personally throughout his professional and private life, and he uses is referent power, in addition to his organizational and personal powers to be an exceptional leader. Dry. Hoarding’s legitimate power permits a significant amount of substitutability, discretion, centrality, and visibility, which Colloquial et al. (201 la) describes as contingency factors (p. 455 – 456). As departmental chair, director of MOST, and a Pl, Dry. Harding has control over department and lab only resources, i. E. , grants, university funds, equipment, etc. , to allocate at his discretion. As a P’, Dry. Harding directs the focus of his research.
For example, the lab focused on Mycobacterium Tuberculosis; however, my interest as in pathogen stimulation via a different signaling receptor. Dry. Harding not only approved my research topic, he decided to write a research grant to further examine this new direction of pathogen induced signaling. Dry. Hoarding’s leadership has centrality. A number of individuals depend on Dry. Hoarding’s leadership to accomplish their tasks and for their development and success, including faculty in the Department of Pathology, MD/PhD students in the MOST, research assistants, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students in his lab.
Dry. Hoarding’s visibility is high, with his power and visibility extending beyond Case, wrought the scientific community. Dry. Harding used a variety of influence tactics emphasized by Colloquial et al. (201 la) during individual and weekly lab meetings (p. 456 – 458). It would have been easy for Dry. Harding to use rational persuasion during our meetings when we were discussing hypotheses, data, and experimental approaches. Rather, he routinely used a combination of influence tactics, like consultation, exchange tactics, and apprising to lead. As my mentor, Dry.
Harding used consultation to assist me in developing the skills needed to become an independent investigator. He would use exchange static to regularly excite me by engaging in discussions and a transfer of ideas. According to my department, I was only required to have one manuscript published before being able to defend my thesis. However, using apprising, Dry. Harding pushed me and other students to publish at least two manuscripts. He felt that the more publications you had, the better off you would be in finding a top-notch postdoctoral fellowship position. I can visualize Dry.
Harding using consultation as an influence tactic with a graduate student having difficulties with an experimental approach, by suggesting an alternative experimental sign/approach to overcome the roadblock. Due to the difficulty of obtaining grant funding, I have heard of other Plus using pressure and coalition influences in their labs to push the postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. To my knowledge, Dry. Harding never used pressure or coalition influences on me or others. Dry. Hoarding’s expert and referent power made the influence tactics he used effortless.
While I occasionally had conflicting views regarding my research direction or experimental approach, I complied with Dry. Hoarding’s requests as had a tremendous amount of respect for him and his position (Colloquial et al. 201 la, p. 458 – 459). An ethical issue that recently surfaced surrounding my manuscript authorship. My second manuscript was submitted for publication to the Journal of Immunology. The manuscript was returned requesting revisions prior to acceptance for publication. At that time, I was no longer at the University, so another PhD graduate student in the lab completed the revisions.
Dry. Harding emailed me explaining the amount of work that was put into completing the revisions and asked about me sharing first authorship with the graduate student. I agreed, and the other student was made co-first author. Dry. Harding later emailed me and asked my opinion regarding having that graduate student’s name precede mine on the manuscript. Disagreed and provided my reasoning, including that the conception and design of the experiments and completion of the majority of the experiments were completed by me. Ultimately, I complied with Dry.
Hoarding’s request to be made second co- first author. According to the four-component model described by Colloquial et al. (201 la), Dry. Harding showed moral awareness when he discussed the fairness issue of making the other graduate student co-first author and discussed this change with me first (p. 33). While I do not feel his cognitive moral development questionable (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 237), I believe that his actions to make the other student co-first author were in conflict with the “ethics of duties” described as the inconsequentially principle by Colloquial et al. 201 la), specifically that, 1) “the act should respect human dignity and 2) the act should be endurable by others” (p. 239). This act failed to respect my dignity. If examined and applied by others, believe the outcome would differ. On the other hand, if we apply the consequentiality principle described by Colloquial et al. 201 la) to Dry. Hoarding’s decision, his decision would coincide with the utilitarianism principle, where his decision may have resulted in the “greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people” (p. 239).
The Department of Pathology requires at least one published manuscript for a graduate student to graduate. By allowing the graduate student to be first co-author, he met this requirement. So instead of this student having to develop another manuscript from scratch, a process that can take at least another year or more, he was allowed to graduate once this manuscript was accepted for publication. Financially, this does the greatest good for Dry. Harding, the department, the university, taxpayer’s research dollars, and the graduate student and his family.
The final step is moral intent, and it was clear that Dry. Harding was committed to the moral course of action and decided to allow the graduate student’s name to precede mine (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 237). Approaching this ethical dilemma from a utilitarianism point of view, I can understand the position that Dry. Harding took. Furthermore, Brown and Mitchell (2010) suggest that moral emotions propose a significant impact on Leader ethical decision-making (p. 593). Dry. Harding decision, if driven by financial motives could have been the source of emotions that influenced his decisions. Although Dry.
Harding may have used a utilitarianism approach in making his decision, Brown and Mitchell (2010) pointed out that, “unethical leadership provides a baseline of behaviors that influence the decisions of followers”‘ (p. 589). So, making an unethical decision based on the “greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people,” may do more harm than initially thought (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 239). As a leader with many titles, making decisions s critical to the university and the people that Dry. Harding leads. Due to Dry. Hoarding’s numerous leadership roles, he uses all four leader decision-making styles described by Colloquial et al. 201 la, p. 486 – 489). As Pl, Dry. Harding makes a number of decisions without suggestions from his lab personal. But there are a number of research related issues (i. E. , troubleshooting a research question, deciding what equipment or reagents to buy, etc. ) where he uses a consultative, facilitative, and/or delegating style of decision-making (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 487 – 488). As Departmental Chair and Director of the MOST, Dry. Harding uses all four styles, but primarily employs a consultative, facilitative, and delegating style. Colloquial et al. 201 la) talks about two day-to-day leadership behaviors: initiating structure and consideration (p. 490 – 492). Dry. Harding exhibits a combination of both behaviors. As Pl, Dry. Harding excels at taking an active role in group organization, proportioning, planning, and pioneering new research ventures. In his leadership roles, Dry. Harding makes an effort to create relationships based on trust, respect, and open communication. Dry. Harding role as a Pl follows transformational leadership (Colloquial et al. , 2011 a, p. 496). As a graduate advisor and mentor, Dry.
Harding inspired me to initially develop my skills at asking basic questions and developing research methods and techniques to test my questions for plausible answers. This directly relates to Piccolo and Colitis’s (2006) argument of transformational leadership and characteristics theory and its effectiveness in enhancing followers’ commitment, and promoting novel thinking and troubleshooting skills through “perceptions of core job characteristics” (p. 327). Dry. Hoarding’s leadership role developed my adaptive and creative task performance (Colloquial et al. , 201 la, p. 36 – 37).
Many of the techniques that I was employing were novel and unusual. As I grew in my abilities, Dry. Harding taught me to develop a more global view of my research and how it fit into the broader scheme of science. I began to develop creative task performance as explored new and novel methodologies directing my research. Before long, was developing my own research studies, performing novel and unusual techniques, presenting my research at national conferences, and writing manuscripts. Dry. Hoarding’s transformational leadership was directly related to my intrinsic motivation.
Piccolo and Colloquial (2006) study identified intrinsic motivation is developed from a correlation between transformational leadership and core job characteristics and positively influences task performance (p. 336 – 337). Even during the difficult times, when research methods failed, Dry. Harding transformational behavior and leadership styles gave me the needed push to continue forward. His genuine honesty, trustworthiness, and sincere desire to assist me had a direct impact on my level of organizational commitment ND job performance as a PhD graduate student.
His passion for research and the unique and interesting questions that he proposed excited and motivated me. Although guided leadership is important, several leader substitutes and neutralizes decreased Dry. Hoarding’s leadership influence (Colloquial et al. , 2011 a, p. 504 – 506). As I began to develop my graduate skills, knowledge, and scientific experiences, I became more independent and would design and test experiments independent of Dry. Harding leadership. I would also consult and receive guidance from other Plus from my thesis committee and department.
Additionally, there was the intrinsic satisfaction of my research success. The neutralizes that decreased Dry. Hoarding’s leadership influence included repetitive techniques required by research and the physical distance of Dry. Harding office to our research lab (Colloquial et al. , 2011 a, p. 504 – 506). Conclusions and Reflections Dry. Harding exemplary leadership style is a combination of organizational powers, contingency factors, and leader decision-making grounded in an ethical framework. Dry.
Hoarding’s honesty, trustworthiness, and desire to assist my development into an effective independent investigator were influential factors hat showed me the positive impact that his leadership style had on my job performance, task performance, and organizational commitment. This exercise and the many organizational behavior assessments that I have taken during MAMBA 620 have taught me that I am developing the skills, behaviors, and abilities necessary to become an effective manager/leader. In particular, this exercise has taught me the utility of positive leadership attributes.
I scored 80 out of 100 on the “what it takes to be a leaders assessment and continue to hone my leadership skills (Colloquial et al. , 2011 b). I believe in meeting goals and objectives ND reaching high achievements. I am ambitious, reliable, and adaptable. While have a strong desire to work independently, value and enjoy working as part of a multidisciplinary team. I have a people-oriented personality and in a team setting, I can assume the roles of harmonize, gatekeeper, or encourager (Colloquial et al. 201 b). I understand the importance of diversity and its role in leadership, society and organizational culture.