A Critical Reflection of My Own Experience of Leadership The WritePass Journal

A Critical Reflection of My Own Experience of Leadership Introduction A Critical Reflection of My Own Experience of Leadership ). However, I came to know that he did not go through development programmes for creative problem solving, which I think is necessary, considering that for a leader, the use of collaborative skills and creativity techniques is part of the leadership strategy, just as what Higgins (2012) had suggested. In this regard, since Mr. M enabled his people to work well in delegation, he was able to function well as a coach. He was the kind who was willing to delegate and was comfortable to hand off assignments to the team. The kind of matters he delegated to those he led was not simply those referring to tasks but to responsibilities, which also harmonised with the discussion of Lussier and Achua (2010).   Mr. M was not the kind of leader who would think that he was the boss with adequate knowledge and experience as an approach to problem solving.   Solving problems by a leader because he thinks he is the most capable one is what Tracy (2013) called reverse delegation. Instead, Mr. M avoids committing this reverse delegation by making us define the problem clearly, developing a range of solutions, and selecting a solution being recommended.   I believe Mr. M was able to grow his staff – which was one of his major responsibilities as a leader – by helping them develop pr oblem-solving skills. I once asked him for a solution to a certain problem, and his responses was (as always) â€Å"What do you think must be done in this situation?† Thus, in many cases, he was able to make team members determine the best course of action for a certain problem or situation. There were times when a problem seemed too overwhelming to be handled by a member and would seek his help, to which his usual response would be to insist that the person must learn how to do it, with his guidance. Incidentally, Tracy (2013) stated that in case an employee returns to the leader with a complain that he/she could not do the job rightly, it is better for both of them if the leader guides the person in accomplishing the job rather than taking it back and adding it to his load, which is probably full. As much as he could, Mr. M does not take sides or intervene in interpersonal problems, to which some people in our team would attempt to make him a mediator or a counselor. His tendency was not to express an opinion showing favour to one party over the other. This stance was also taken as positive by Tracy (2013), who said that as a rule, one would not be able to have the full story, and once a leader takes a particular position, it might mean weakening his authority with both persons in the future.   As a result of good performance, the performing employee was rewarded by the leader. Areas for My Own Development Based on the case presented, the suggested areas for my own development as a leader are: delegating responsibilities to my team members, promoting decision-making through problem solving, and motivating the workforce through a high degree of autonomy and job control. I have learned through this exercise that delegating responsibilities is not only to free or unburden the leader of the many workloads but to provide opportunities for growth. Similarly, involving the whole team toward a problem-solving activity results in providing an opportunity for decision making. Noteworthy here is the fact that decision making allows employees to become more involved in the job (Bhattacharya and McGlothlin, 2011). I am also noting that a high level of autonomy in the job necessitates corresponding skills sets for the work, in which employees with high job autonomy tend to perceive greater responsibility for either the success or failure of their efforts, and are also likely to experience increased job satisfaction (Lewis et al., 2007).   My members’ skills must therefore be in synch with the level of autonomy required in their job, and that I could help them work on developing their skills through related training and coaching. Conclusion To conclude, the leader plays a crucial role in the development of members and in achieving organisational goals. This insight was demonstrated by this critical reflection through its discussion of delegation, problem solving, job autonomy, and maintaining one’s authority by not taking sides in members’ problems with interpersonal relationships.   Mr. M was able to promote trust and motivation both for himself and for his team members, typical of transformational leadership theory. Transactional theory had also demonstrated a specific transaction based on a mutually beneficial relationship between the leader and the followers. This case also complemented with the path-goal theory in which the leader guides the members in treading a desired path. The case led to identification of my own areas for development. References Bhattacharya, A. and McGlothlin, J. D. (2011) Occupational Ergonomics: Theory and Applications. Second Edition. NW: CRC Press. Bligh, M. C. and Riggio, R. E. (2013) Exploring Distance in Leader-Follower Relationships: When Near is Far and Far is Near. NY: Routledge. Gittens, B. E. (2008) Perceptions of the Applicability of Transformational Leadership Behavior to the Leader Role of Academic Department Chairs: A Study of Selected Universities in Virginia. Parkway: ProQuest LLC. Griffin, R. W. and Moorhead, G. (2012) Organizational Behavior. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage-Learning. Higgins, J. M. (2012) The role of HR in fostering innovation in organizations. In G. M. Benscoter (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management: Thematic Essays (pp. 226-238). NJ: John Wiley Sons. Lewis, P., Goodman, S., Fandt, P., and Michlitsch, J. (2007) Management: Challenges for Tomorrow’s Leaders. Mason, OH: Thomson Higher Education. Lussier, R. and Achua, C. (2010) Leadership: Theory, Application, and Skill Development. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Martin, B., Cashel, C., Wagstaff, M., and Breunig, M. (2006) Outdoor Leadership: Theory and Practice. IL: Human Kinetics. Parker, G. M. (2008) Team Players and Teamwork: New Strategies for Developing Successful Collaboration. NJ: John Wiley Sons. Pride, W., Hughes, R., and Kapoor, J. (2010) Business. Tenth Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Ricketts, C. and Ricketts, J. (2011) Leadership: Personal Development Career Success. Third Edition. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Tracy, B. (2013) Delegation and Supervision. NY: AMACOM.

The Sinking of the Lusitania and Americas Entry into World War I

The Sinking of the Lusitania and America's Entry into World War I On May 7, 1915, the British ocean liner RMS Lusitania was in route from New York City to Liverpool, England when it was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat. Over 1100 civilians died as a result of this attack, including more than 120 American citizens. This defining moment would later prove to be the impetus which eventually convinced United States public opinion to change from its’ earlier position of neutrality with respect to being a participant in World War I.  On April 6, 1917,  President Woodrow Wilson appeared before the U.S. Congress calling for a declaration of war against Germany.   American Neutrality at the Start of World War I World War I had officially started on August 1, 1914 when Germany declared war against Russia.   Then on August 3rd and 4th, 1914, Germany declared war against France and Belgium respectively, which resulted in Great Britain declaring war against Germany. Austria-Hungary declared war against Russia on August 6th following Germany’s lead.  Following this domino effect that started World War I, President  Woodrow Wilson  announced that the United States would remain neutral. This was consistent with the public opinion of the majority of the American people.    At onset of the war, Britain and United States were very close trading partners so it was not unexpected that tensions would arise between the United States and Germany once the Germans started to conduct a blockade of the British Isles. In addition, a number of American ships that were bound for Great Britain had been either damaged or sunk by German mines. Then in February 1915, Germany broadcast that they would be conducting unrestricted submarine patrols and combat in the waters which surround Britain. Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the Lusitania The Lusitania had been built to be the world’s fastest ocean liner and shortly after her maiden voyage in September 1907, the Lusitania made the fastest crossing of the Atlantic Ocean at that time earning her the nickname â€Å"Greyhound of the Sea†. She was able to cruise at an average speed of 25 knots or approximately 29 mph, which is about the same speed as modern cruise ships. The Lusitania’s construction had been secretly financed by the British Admiralty, and she was built to their specifications. In exchange for the government subsidy, it was understood that if England went to war then the Lusitania would be committed to serving the Admiralty. In 1913, war was looming on the horizon and the Lusitania was put in dry dock in order to be properly fitted for military service. This included installing gun mounts on her decks – which were hidden under the teak deck so that guns could easily be added when needed. At the end of April 1915, on the same page were two announcements in New York newspapers. First, there was an advertisement of the impending voyage of the Lusitania scheduled to depart from New York City on May 1st for its’ trip back across the Atlantic to Liverpool. In addition, there were warnings that had been issued by the German Embassy in Washington, D.C. that civilians who traveled in war zones on any British or Allied ship was done at their own risk. The German warnings of submarine attacks did have a negative impact on the passenger list of the Lusitania as when the ship set sail on May 1, 1915 as it was far below its’ capacity of a combined 3,000 passengers and crew on board. The British Admiralty had warned the Lusitania to either avoid the Irish coast or take some very simple evasive actions, such as zigzagging to make it more difficult for German U-boats to determine the ship’s course of travel.  Unfortunately the Lusitania’s Captain, William Thomas Turner, failed to give proper deference to the Admiralty’s warning. On May 7, the British ocean liner RMS Lusitania was en route from New York City to Liverpool, England when it was torpedoed on its starboard side and sunk by a German U-boat off the coast of Ireland. It only took about 20 minutes for the ship to sink. The Lusitania was carrying approximately 1,960 passengers and crew, of which there were 1,198 casualties. In addition, this passenger list included 159 U.S. citizens and there were 124 Americans included in the death toll.   After the Allies and the United States complained, Germany argued that the attack was justified because the Lusitania’s manifest listed various items of munitions that were bound for the British military. The British claimed that none of the munitions on board were â€Å"live†, so therefore the attack on the ship was not legitimate under the rules of war at that time. Germany argued otherwise. In 2008, a dive team explored the wreck of the Lusitania in 300 feet of water and found approximately four million rounds of Remington .303 bullets that had been made in the United States in the ship’s hold. Although Germany eventually gave in to protests made by the United States government regarding the submarine attack on the Lusitania and promised to end this type of warfare, six months later another ocean liner was sunk. In November 2015, a U-boat sunk an Italian liner without any warning whatsoever.   More than 270 people perished in this attack, including more than 25 Americans causing public opinion to begin to turn in favor of joining the war against Germany. Americas Entry into World War I On January 31, 1917, Germany declared that it was placing an end to its’ self-imposed moratorium on unrestricted warfare in waters that were within the war-zone. The United States government broke diplomatic relations with Germany three days later and almost immediately a German U-boat sunk the Housatonic which was an American cargo ship. On February 22, 1917, Congress enacted an arms appropriations bill that was designed to prepare the United States for war against Germany. Then, in March, four more U.S. merchant ships were sunk by Germany which prompted President Wilson to appear before Congress on April 2nd requesting a declaration of war against Germany. The Senate voted to declare war against Germany on April 4th and on April 6, 1917 the House of Representatives endorsed the Senate’s declaration causing the United States to enter World War I.