My reflections on the 8 symbolic roles

1. Historian: values the "knowing" of a place. As a relatively new faculty member I find myself listening carefully as the history behind processes and programs reveals themselves. As the workforce becomes more transient I think the individuals with history will take on a new role for leaders. Transient workforces might create a less imprinted history and possibly make change less problematic than it is for organizations with deeply engrained historical roots.
2. Anthropological sleuth: uncovers the norms and values of the organization's culture. Getting to know the way they do things. This ties into the historian role I think.
3. Visionary: works with others to develop a meaningful and constantly evolving vision. I think this speaks to earlier discussions we have had about leaders staying in touch with their folllowship and keeping the values of the organization at the forefront. Always working towards making the organization better, not seeking personal glory.
4. Symbol: I see this as modeling the behavior you want to see in others. I do it with my nursing students. The leader's behavior and image must be congruent with the organization.
5. Potter: I see this as developing new symbols through traditions, rituals, etc. Often it is new blood who can creatively infuse new traditions. For example it was the new facutly members at the School of Nursing who successfully got a White Coat Ceremony started for new nursing students. I suspect that over the coming years this will develop into something very important to students and faculty alike.
6. Poet: uses language to reinforce image. I believe that successful and motivating leaders must be articulate and moving speakers. Their actions and words must also be congruent!
7. Actor: improvise in the never ending organization dramas. How true! Where there are people, there will be drama. A leader has to be able to navigate through it and not get caught up in it.
8. Healer: oversees and helps the organization through transitions and change. Conflict resolution is a must in this area. I personally think it is mandatory that leaders face and eliminate toxic followers...I have seen good people move on because troublemakers were not dealt with. What a loss.

Well that is my two cents...I do beleive that these qualities can create positive and transforming work environments that are productive.

Coaching style

Try this style. This seems like the blend I was referring to earlier of affirmative and democratic. A coaching leader would value input from others, and wish to have a harmonious environment in order to bring out the best in others. Situational Leadership Theory also discusses the advantages of a coaching leader, but states that it works best with a capable followership.

Pacesetting style

Setting high standards of performance. I was surprised that this was viewed as negative, because I feel I set high stnadards, but I primarily set them for myself and not as much for others. I try to model high performance to get high performance in return, which I think Dr. K was getting at during class tonight as some point in the discussion.

I suppose the negative aspect of this style is referring to the micro-manager. I actually work with someone like this and we get along really well, but I can see why others would not like working with her. She is a perfectionist and oversees things very tightly, and is hyper-critical of everyone who does not perform to her expectations. I think we get along because we compliment each other...she is extremely well organized (me, not so much) but I am very creative and can see multiple ways of doing things (something she values highly). I think if I were as concrete as she is, we would not work well together at all.

Democratic style

What do you think style. Highly interactive, and probably most likely to bring about support and change if the leader gets the majority to "buy into" a change. The potential downside I see is inertia due to too many opinions (a case of too many indians and no chief). In the end the leader must make decisions, and not everyone will agree that they are the best. I think democratic leaders might be viewed as weak leaders...seen as relying on others too much. This being said, I am probably a mix between the democratic and affirmative leader. I truely value input from others because I know I don't have all the answers. I also really value interpersonal harmony and do not choose to hang around disaggreeable types.

Affirmative style

"People come first". My experience is that this type of leader always rises to the top. People like to work with and for them. The leader knows the followers and fosters a trusting work environment. As I look back over all the people I have worked for, there are two affirmative leaders that I had the pleasure of working with. In my opinion, they were able to bring out the best in everyone. The pleasant atmosphere they created made all things seem possible. In one example, a huge organizational restructuring was taking place and nurses were being cross trained into areas they had had no involvement with before. The leader I am recalling made that transformation smoother than expected and in the end I think it was a very successful change, and one that I have not seen duplicated in other heathcare settings.

Authoritative style

"Come with me style". I can see where this might be viewed as a negative style. Not all people interact with authority figures well. The degree of interaction and mutual respect seems to be of paramount importance here. Buy-in and having a "shared vision" are necessary to making an authoritative leader work.

the 6 leadership styles