Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This week, I was ecstatic to see that all members of my team had participated harmoniously and competently to achieve a successful result in our first rollover. Our team, along with one other, is now in the lead of our multiplayer MikesBikes simulation. Unfortunately, I was unable to contribute on the day of the rollover due to being hospitalized, so I delegated my leadership to the entire team and they far exceeded my expectations.


Earlier on in the week, the CEO’s were called into a meeting with our Lecturer Peter. The topic of discussion was a debate whether one team who had given themselves a superior chance of winning the group work competition assigned to this paper should be stripped of their advantage or be penalized.


This made me think about the Spreier, Fontaine, Malloy (2006) reading called ‘The Destructive Potential of Overachievers’ regarding the inability to empower others when working in a self-consumed environment. The reading states that a major source of strength within an organization is the ability to generate passion and energy. This whole conflict where one team has given themselves a far better chance at achieving lead to the argument whether theirs actions in doing so will create negative flow on effects for other teams in the class, perhaps a decreased self-willingness to learn and work due to the belief that this other team has an inequitable advantage. Spreier, Fontaine, Malloy (2006) state that focusing too much on achievement can destroy ones trustworthiness and overlook ethics and morale, which I feel this team may have done. I personally was unaffected by this teams decision as my initial goal for this course was to focus on the aspect of learning, however from the response from other more competitive members of this course, it is apparent that there is some rage and disagreement.


I am unsure how this panned out due to being away, but I hope all is sorted now.



Spreier, S. W., Fontaine, M. H., & Malloy, R. L. (2006). LEADERSHIP RUN AMOK. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 72-82.


  1. Please make sure you correctly label your learning journal in future. I've done it for you this time. 

    I wonder why the you have put the title of the article in caps. Perhaps these errors happened because you were rushing as your journal was late.

  2. After reading your journal I think it was a good start, but that you could of possibly written more in an in depth manner.  An example would of been explaining how you delegated your leadership responsibilities as this is a quality that all leaders need to recognise and was also relatable towards the readings that we had this week such as the Collins reading regarding the differentiation between level 4 leaders and level 5 leaders and potentially comparing the traits you associate with yourself or how you could potentially develop to become a level 5 leader.

    I personally found this journal entry a little flat simply because it appears rushed and the effort feels minimal.  Therefore, I'm not completely sure what else I can say simply because I believe that you can probably produce better work then this.  An example of this is through the last paragraph where you state the same article throughout, but do not integrate this completely into your own experiences except with a couple of words after the statement.  The effort has been indicated but has not been followed through to completion. Your examples could of come from past experiences with leaders and followers then the experience we are experiencing with MikesBikes for this weeks readings, which could of provided a nice contract between your own delegation due to your personal circumstances and past experiences with delegation and how you drew upon these and applied them to your MikesBikes group.  

    Overall, it was a good draft, but more reflection and integration of the readings and your personal experiences would of lifted this reflection to a piece of work I am sure you could produce if you had more time.  

  3. Hi. Firstly, I want to apologize for just writing my feedback now. I made a terrible mistake and just realized now that we have assigned journals to give feedbacks too, I thought we choose who to give feedbacks to. (Stupid mistake, I know. (smile)) Anyway, on a more important note. Here's my feedback:

    I thought that this was a good journal entry, but I think that if you had more time you could've written a better one. (smile) I think what you can do is to relate more of the theories in the readings to your experiences in more depth. It's evident that you understood the concepts, but I think it would've been better if you incorporated more of what you learnt in your entry. Great effort and all the best to you!