This week was the first full week of working in groups. It proved to be a great opportunity to get to know the members of the team and start figuring out strategies for the semester of mikes bikes, and also making decisions for the first practice rollover next week. In terms of learning, I really enjoyed and found value in this week’s reading in praise of followers (Kelley, 1988) as I personally identify myself as a natural follower within any team situation. Overall it reinforced the idea that followers are equally as important as leaders as they are essentially the army of the team, and was a nice change to read about leadership with a strong focus on followers as opposed to the leaders themselves. Even in my team situation at work, this reading gave me theoretical validity for the work I do as a contribution to a shared goal. I think many managers, especially those who are in charge of people working in low skill jobs are only extrinsically motivated by work, which is not always the case. From this reading I learnt the behavioural dimensions scale which measures the type of worker’s tendencies at work and in a team. These most likely predict which motivators will relate to them the most. These were the independence/critical thinking scale and the passive/active scale. If a worker is passive and scores low on the critical thinking scale, they are more likely to do a task and then stop and less likely to use their initiatives. If they are critical thinkers who actively do work and use initiative, they should be treated accordingly. My one question from this is how is it measured? Ineffective leaders are mentioned in this text and no real method of measurement except plain judgement is noted. If a leader or manager is deemed inefficient, how can they effectively judge the character of workers, let alone find successful means of motivation.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142--148