This week to begin was one that tested the groups dynamic, where mutual accountability could really be tested and whether our goals were really that well aligned. I am pleasantly surprised that not only did I feel that team members were not only upholding their workload, in some areas they were over exceeding with great in-depth analysis, logical connections between data and actual figures that they had deciphered out of the small research material they were offered. To say the least I feel the pressure to make a strong attempt at performing to the best of my ability as the CFO as well as what I am identified within the group as a CFA. Obviously there is a strong presence of mutual accountability within the group, creating a context in which the bonds both supporting us is also driving us forward like that a build-up breakthrough flywheel as described by Collins (2005).
What is interesting is that of the leadership dynamic within the team context. What can first be noticed is that of effective followers as mentioned by Kelley (1988) with respect to the formation of the team where members are allocated into specific fields where they have technical expertise and knowledge that enables them to create more informed decisions and lead others through advice in regards to their specific area. However there are multiple layers of leaders within the team with regards to Collin’s (2005) five levels of leadership. Although however I must dispute that different member oscillate between the different levels of Collin’s leadership levels where it suggested that these are prescribed leadership levels that do not change.
An evaluation of the dynamic leadership from that of the results of the first rollover show that the results achieved were greater than that achieved by individual attempts in offline mode with the SHV reaching 17.8 with keeping in mind that there was a lot of investment into R&D and internal quality to strengthen our strategic position within the market. But leadership from that described in this week’s readings is based on that of an individual, where there is a disposition between that of the leader and their followers. From critical analysis of this area in previous courses as well as experience as a leader and in teams, I disagree with this concept. I acknowledge that leadership is tied to positive outcomes from activities but disagree that this originates from one individual. This may be relevant in that of a system where power is distributed in that of a hierarchy, but in a mutually accountable team with goal alignment, these attributes can still be found but shared by all members input and facilitated through team engagement; not based on one individual.
To summarise my reflection, the environment of a mutually accountable team with strong goal alignment enables for dynamic leadership qualities and positions to be found in all members who contribute to the team’s progress. With a strong start to the MikesBikes simulation, the contributions and leadership qualities of all team members can be shown and I hope will continue on past the practice rounds.
Collins, J. C. (2005). Level 5 leadership: the triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 83(7/8), 136-146.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.