Leadership Profile

While at VMI, I have held multiple leadership positions in the activities I have participated in.

-Hell Week/Old Corps Corporal

-Marathon Club CIC

-Marine Corps Fireteam Leader

-Rat Challenge Cadre Sergeant

-NCMT S4 ACIC

-NCMT ACIC

As a leader, I believe I am effectively able to relay certain kinds of information in a format that is understandable to subordinates and without misunderstanding my meaning. I also feel that I have a positive presence that is both approachable and admirable to them. According to a communication styles survey I participated in, the primary group I fall under is “Thinker.” This group more closely aligns with tasks over feelings, however, my second most prevalent communicator group was the “harmonizer” group which values the feelings of the group. I would say these two in conjunction with one another create a leadership profile that can be well-implemented in many scenarios because I can focus on both the mission at hand as well as the thought processes of my followers, know to ask for their input, and track on when to slow down (Douglas, 1998). (9)

However, there are still many other areas of leadership where I tend not to shine as much. In instances that require me to be increasingly more supportive, I tend to take an unintentional step back and cannot be as cheerful as my peers are. The result eventually becomes unmotivated midshipmen or cadets that expect positive reinforcement that I cannot seem to provide in highly energetic surroundings. Moreover, my public speaking ability is atrocious. I have never felt as though I have had “a moment” where I was inspired or a scene in a famous sports movie. These two things in particular bother me the most when it comes to effective and interpersonal leadership. (0)

According to a leadership effectiveness survey  I partook in during the span of this class, I found that I am above average in “leading by example”, “participative decision-making”, “informing”, “coaching”, and “showing concern/interacting with the team.” Although I do not achieve full marks on this survey, it demonstrates that I hold the capacity to be an empathetic leader that can effectively operate. On a scale of 1-5, each of these categories was scored over 4 to some degree, with “leading by example” is the highest at 4.6 (Hersey, & Blanchard, 1984).

In another survey that determines personality traits, I found that I am startlingly high in agreeableness and conscientiousness  On a scale of 1-6, agreeableness was a 5.6 and conscientiousness was a 4.5. Agreeableness relates to my ability to get along with peers and subordinates in everyday life. To this extent, it becomes a weakness because I am unwilling to disagree often and would rather keep the group happy by constantly going through with what they want. On the other hand, having high conscientiousness is a positive trait, as it means I am more susceptible to picking up on crucial details that could potentially impact the environment or mission (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008).

To better define my ability to provide authentic leadership, which values a leader’s true self and transparency, I took the “Authentic Leadership Inventory.” The results indicate that the two highest subscales on a scale of 1-5 are Balanced Processing (4.75) and Relational Transparency (4.25). Balanced Processing refers to my ability to objectively view the facts of situations and make the best decision based on the facts. At its root, balanced processing is personal integrity. Relational transparency, on the other hand, describes my ability to achieve openness in conversation and situations. It signifies my value of telling and knowing the truth and disseminating that truth to subordinates (Neider & Schriesheim, 2011).

Another important outlook on leadership is Transformational Leadership, which describes the ability of a leader to positively (or negatively) impact follower development and thought. On a scale of 1-6 where 6 is the highest possible score, I scored the highest in the subscales of “providing an appropriate model (idealized influence)” and “supportive leadership (individualized consideration).” In both subscales, I earned a 5.3 which is high above the median score. Idealized influence is the perceived ability of a leader to act as a good role model for their followers. A leader high in this category tends to be admired and respected by their peers for appearing trustworthy and genuine in purpose and goal.  Secondly, individualized consideration is the tendency of a leader to take the time to recognize and attend to the needs of their followers on a case-by-case basis (Podsakoff et al., 1990; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004).

Finally, I participated in a survey that determines emotional intelligence on a scale of 1-6 and includes a score for overall emotional intelligence. The results showed that I scored a 4.77 for my overall emotional intelligence, and subscales on the same 1-6 scale, include: Self-Awareness of Emotions (5.4), Other-Awareness of Emotions (5.29), Self-Management of Emotions (4.14), and Other-Management of Emotions (4.43). Emotional intelligence describes a person’s ability to analyze themselves and others at any given time to determine how they are feeling emotionally, as well as how to react and manage those emotions depending on how intense they are. The subscales reflect this idea but to individuals versus another person and management of themselves versus other people. In terms of how I compare to my peers, I am within one standard deviation of the mean (4.55) in Self-Awareness of Emotions, above average with 13.6% of cadets in Other-Awareness of Emotions, within one standard deviation of the mean in Self-Management of Emotions (4.46), and again within one standard deviation of the mean of Other-Management of Emotions (4.53). Therefore, I conclude from this data that I am relatively average when compared to other cadets, only rising above average when taking into account others’ emotions over my own (Petrides, 2000).