"The Organizational Leadership Capstone is a culminating experience designed to provide students with an opportunity to demonstrate mastery in the field of organizational leadership. The Capstone course will be based on program coursework, research, application to career, and reflect the synthesis of theory and practice. Practiced leadership behavior will be viewed via a valid and reliable survey 360o instrument."
--Siena Heights University
The Leadership Profile Results for Chuck Jacobson
Charles Jacobson
Department of Organizational Leadership, Siena Heights University
LDR 695-OB: Capstone
Dr. Robert Cote’
August 17, 2024
The Leadership Profile Results for Chuck Jacobson
This paper will examine the results of Chuck Jacobson’s survey results of The Leadership Profile. Survey results will be analyzed to determine Chuck Jacobson’s leadership abilities as well as his self-awareness. Mr. Jacobson’s results will be compared with those given by his observers which can then be compared to understand his self-awareness. Also, his observer’s scores will be analyzed to determine Mr. Jacobson’s strengths and weaknesses. Once his strengths and weaknesses have been determined, actions aimed at increasing his strengths and improving his weaknesses will be discussed.
Process
The Leadership Profile is a 360-degree survey consisting of 50 questions divided into 10 groups that are grouped into three major categories. The major categories are Transactional Leadership which is further divided into Capable Management and Reward Equity. Transformational Leadership Behaviors which is broken down into four categories Leadership Communication, Credible Leadership, Caring Leadership, and Enabling Leadership. Finally, the Transformational Leadership Characteristics is divided into four categories Confident Leadership, Follower Centered Leadership, Visionary Leadership, and Culture Building Leadership.
The Participant (P) answers all 50 questions. The Observers (O) also individually answer all 50 questions. The (P)’s answers are calculated and posted under the self-assessment section of The Leadership Profile for each major category and sub-category. The (O)’s answers are averaged and the mean of their scores is used as the (O)’s assessment for each major and sub-category. The answers are anonymous throughout the process and the final report is issued to the (P).
The question’s answer options are chosen as part of a five-point Likert scale (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). One criticism of the Likert scale is the assumption that by using integers the distance between answer options is equal which makes the resulting numerical results not as clear as they could be (Wilson et al, 2023). Using a 100-point scoring system might bring more exacting results. Also, Likert-scaled scoring survey users tend to not use the outer ends of the scoring system so the result is more often in the middle (Wilson et al., 2023). Rosenbach and Sashkin (2014) write that the mean score for the survey is 50 with 2/3 of the scores falling between 33 and 66. Scores below 40 should be considered low and those over 60 should be considered high. Also, any point discrepancies of 10 or more between the (P) and (O) should be looked at more closely as it is considered a statistically significant deviation of opinions (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014).
Major Category Results
The major categories are Transactional Leadership, Transformational Leadership Behaviors, and Transformational Leadership Characteristics. Using the numbers developed during the survey, plots can be made on a diagram to form a triangle which can be used to compare to other diagrams supplied by Rosenbach and Sashkin to help determine the (P)’s leadership strengths and weaknesses (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014).
Transactional Leadership (P=54.02. O=48.34)
Transactional Leadership is the leadership act of giving a reward for work accomplished. Xu and Wang (2019) wrote in their study that transactional leadership works best in individualistic work environments where collaboration is less prevalent. They also wrote that manager effectiveness was dependent on worker characteristics (Xu & Wang, 2019). Effective transactional leadership styles include knowing what rewards your followers desire and using them to increase motivation to accomplish goals (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014).
The (P)’s self-score was 54.02 while the (O)’s score was 48.34. These scores are relatively comparable which shows the (P) is fairly accurate in their self-assessment (Rosenbach & Sashkin, (2014). This score (54.02) was the highest major category score the (P) gave himself. This is surprising at first glance as the (P) considers himself a more transformational leader than transactional.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational Leadership differs from Transactional Leadership in that the relationship to goal accomplishment is more shared between the leader and follower with the follower having a strong personal identification with the leader. A follower going beyond their job description and putting the team ahead of themselves is a result of Transformational
Leadership.
Transformational Leadership Behaviors (P=41.94, O=50.69)
The (P)’s self-score in Transformational Leadership Behaviors was the lowest score he gave himself. The (O) score was almost nine points higher and was the highest score (O) gave (P) in the major categories. This approaches the 10-point threshold of statistical significance that Rosenbach and Sashkin (2014) give as a guideline for (P) re-accessing his opinion of his Transformational Leadership Behaviors regarding future development. This result is puzzling as the (P) would have considered this one of his strengths with the Communication, Enabling, Credible, and Caring components in this category. The (P) factored in team actions, as part of the city commission, when answering the survey in the Credibility section. There were times when the (P) thought the commission would pass agenda items which did not happen. The (P) also had high expectations on items which sometimes did not come to fruition. So, while the (P) was credible there were times when the expectations he expressed to others did not happen, the (P) took responsibility for these instances when filling out the survey.
Transformational Leadership Characteristics (P=48.38, O=50.49)
The (P)’s self-score in Transformational Leadership Characteristics closely tracked the scores given by (O). The characteristics scored in this section included confident, follower-centered, visionary, and culture-building (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). There were no appreciable differences, so (P)’s self-assessment in this category is comparatively accurate with the (P) and (O) scoring the (P) within just over 2 points of each other. The (P) is doing a good job of being self-aware of their Transformational Leadership Characteristics.
Leadership Type
Rosenbach and Sashkin (2014) recommend plotting the major category scores received from The Leadership Profile onto a triangular diagram. Two diagrams are used, one for (P)’s self-scores and one for the scores produced by the (O)’s answers. Those diagrams are below.
The data from the (P) and the (O) plots are similar. Comparing the diagrams to the diagrams supplied by Rosenbach and Sashkin (2014) the (P) resembles the diagram most closely related to The Aspiring Leader in both. The Aspiring Leader is a leader who has mastered the basics, is well-rounded in the leadership categories tested, and is in a great position to experience growth.
Sub-Category Results
Transactional Leadership
Capable Management (P=53.28, O=47.39)
Capable managers give their employees the information, resources, and training they need to do their jobs well. They also give their employees challenging goals that are clearly defined and give them the support they need to accomplish their goals (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). The (P) learned in Leadership 600 that training is an important part of employee well-being which results in better productivity (Lester, 2022).
The (P) and (O) scores were similar so the (P) is pretty accurate with his self-awareness. While the support for employees is there it could be improved, training has been an issue, as attempts to get training paid for staff have fallen on deaf ears. The training experienced by the (P) consisted of, “Here are some keys go sell something”. Any training beyond that was self-sought, so having training, even if it is informal could be a good way to increase this score. Another avenue of improvement could be a weekly update/newsletter addressing upcoming events and ideas that could give employees a formal method of communication that could be referenced at their leisure. This could be a good way to ensure any information they might need for the week would be easily accessible to them at any time.
Reward Equity (P=54.76, O=49.29)
Reward equity can be defined as a leader’s ability to express appreciation for a job well done, reward employees fairly, and more importantly understand what rewards employees value all while communicating what is expected of them to get these rewards (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). The (P) gave himself a score over 5 points higher than the (O). While that is under the 10-point threshold Rosenbach and Sashkin (2014) give as being statistically significant it does warrant some deeper thought. (P) has almost always seen money as the motivator of people until this master’s degree program. During the Leadership 621 class (P) learned that motivating followers can take different paths and that it can and needs to be accomplished fairly (Antoni et al, 2017). Because of this class (P) negotiated with the owner he works for and negotiated a 50% increase in vacation time for all staff. This came at no increase in cost to the company and resulted in a great benefit for all employees.
Transformational Leadership Behaviors
Leadership Communication (P=35.11, O=41.86)
The Leadership Communication score measures the ability of the leader to express ideas clearly, pay attention to what others say, listen to feelings, and get complicated ideas across clearly while grabbing people’s attention (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). The (P) spends a great deal of time communicating, however it appears that there needs to be a focus on quality. The (P) spends a great deal of time preparing any ideas introduced, which can make him unaware that his communication level needs to be brought down and he needs to provide more details. What might seem to be basic knowledge may not be to someone else. Because of the time he spends preparing his patience level with others who have not prepared as well could be improved. The (P) in his role as mayor tried to take the feeling out of communication as he was trying to keep discussions calm, efficient, and effective. That may have been taken too far as effectiveness is scored as deficient in the survey. Lee et al. (2023) found that the leader’s attitude set the tone for team productivity, but their impatience was a detriment. Being more patient with a calm demeanor could improve Leadership Communication scores.
Credible Leadership (P=37.37, O=51.38)
Credible Leadership scores reflect a leader’s ability to be relied on, and trusted, to follow through, and to keep promises (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). The (P) scored himself lower on this leadership skill as he did not produce all the results he promised as part of the city commission team. This was not because the (P) was dishonest or did not try, it was because he could not get the team to agree. Being mayor is a difficult job and sometimes agenda items that seem like they will pass easily do not. The (p) had to learn to adjust his communication with others until votes were taken and a decision was made. The (O) understands this position by their score, so it appears the (P) is on track, and may need to give themselves more credit. Credibility is all a jeweler has so the (P) understands its importance. The Leadership 601 class emphasized the importance of a leader promoting principles and values within the organization (DuBrin, 2015).
Caring Leadership (P=41.88, O=62.75)
Caring Leadership recognizes individuals for who they are. Caring leaders show care and concern for others and their points of view, treat others with respect, and make them feel a part of the team (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014).
Caring Leadership was the highest-scoring sub-category the (P) received from the (O). This is a puzzling discrepancy between the (P) and (O) scores as the (P) believes he is a caring leader but scored himself lower. He considers caring as one of his strengths, however, the scores he gave himself do not reflect that. The only reasoning that makes any sense is that (P) has lived his life working in a transactional workplace. His work experience-rewards have been solely money-related. Inventory is taken twice a year, and profits are shared. There has never been any feedback other than a toast at a dinner where the owner credited the (P) for saving all three of the owner’s companies. The owner, the only supervisor of the (P) leads in a transactional manner which for years has conflicted with the transformational leadership tendencies of the (P). It appears that this length of time under these conditions has influenced the thought process of the (P) and even though his tendencies do lean transformational, as he wants to do more, his self-assessment leans transactional as that has been the way he has been treated. So, he underscores himself because what he can do is less than what he wants regarding being a transformational leader. The Leadership 600 class increased the (P) knowledge of what could be done, in small ways, to improve employee well-being. Even things such as making parking easy or having flexible schedules can make a difference (Hills, 2022). So, there are ways the (P) can improve the workplace and show he cares outside of formal solutions.
Enabling Leadership (P=53.41, O=46.76)
Enabling Leadership occurs when leaders give others autonomy to accomplish their goals and design situations by creating opportunities where others can experience success and help them learn from their mistakes. Enabling leaders also involve others in developing new projects and ideas (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). The (P) overscored himself by almost seven points. This can be explained because (P) does give others autonomy and involves them in developing new ideas, however, his support can be lacking as he, in the past, considered his support as a hindrance to other’s autonomy. His thought process was that he gave others autonomy, they were then in charge of the task and he would stay out of it. Remaining in contact to show support should be part of the process. We learned in Leadership 600 that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are three crucial concepts of employee well-being. You have to give people autonomy, show them you feel they are competent, and show you care about them (Mazzetti & Schaufeli, 2011).
Transformational Leadership Characteristics
Confident Leadership (P=57.38, O=61.49)
Confident Leadership Characteristics include acting impactful, making a difference, being confident in their abilities, being in control of their life, and being able to see the results of their actions (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). The (P) and (O) scored this sub-category similarly. The (P) has a great deal of confidence borne from years of failure and success. In the past, the (P) would be concerned about things on the horizon and how he would deal with them. Halliwill et al. (2023) found that leaders with a high level of self-efficacy, can attack challenges, knowing they can be controlled and conquered. The (P) knows that he can handle whatever is thrown his way and tries to instill this confidence in his followers.
Leadership 601 was a great source of information about leadership competencies with actions such as maintaining high-level performance standards and focusing on the strength of team members. Having a high confidence level is necessary to lead talented people.
Follower Centered Leadership (P=46.30, O=44.42)
Follower-Centered Leadership is defined as characteristics that are centered on power and its use and distribution. Follower-centered leaders share power and seek power to use it for the benefit of others. They do not seek power to order others around (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). (P) has never searched for power for his benefit. In fact, (P) would much rather work behind the scenes as part of the team. (P) only ran for mayor because he saw injustices being done and was considered by those around him as the best possible candidate to unseat the incumbent. (P) always looked for ways to delegate and give others power to build future leaders. Sharing leadership is one of the best ways to improve team-building and employee well-being. In Leadership 636 (P) wrote about his request for an ethics policy which was written by the Human Relations Commission and passed by the city commission. In that policy, service orientation and collaboration were directly addressed as positive ways to affect the city and community.
Visionary Leadership (P=38.52, O=46.68)
Visionary Leadership has components of long-range planning, considerations for benefitting others, and being able to explain these plans clearly, in a manner that draws people in (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). During Leadership 636 (P) learned that a leader, as defined by Northouse (2015), brings a group together to accomplish a goal. Being able to do that is what visionary leadership is all about and is a central component of being a leader.
The (P) scored himself over eight points lower than the (O). The (P) understands that his communication skills need help and that selling an idea to a large group of people may not be their forte as they do not have much experience. The resulting scores of the (O) would argue that the (P) is better, but there is room for improvement.
Culture Building Leadership (P=51.31, O=49.35)
Culture Building Leaders build consensus in their organization, model behavior consistent with the organization’s principles, and encourage others to do the same (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). The (P) score is similar to the (O) score which shows a good level of self-awareness. The (P) is at a basic level of mastery but could use some growth. The (P) instituted the Ethics Policy while mayor to set a standard for behavior and modeled the behavior expected. He also does the same at the jewelry store as modeled behavior is the basis for most training.
During Leadership 636 the (P) wrote about instituting the Ethics Policy for the city of Adrian. There were definitions and practical examples of many characteristics, but three that are pertinent to culture-building were being respectful, collaborative, and ethical. The (P) should continue improving their culture-building skills and modeling of organizational morals and principles.
Analysis
The major category results were surprising at first glance as the (P) considers himself as more of a Transformational Leader even though his own scoring would suggest otherwise. The (P) has worked in a transactional career environment for his whole life. It is only normal to assume that would influence his leadership style. (P)’s career feedback consists of bi-annual inventories with the results being black-and-white. Either money was made, or it was not. There is no reward for doing a good job or thanks for your hard work. This makes it difficult for (P) to act in a transformational manner because those thoughts would not get past the owner. The (P) can use more informal methods, such as encouragement, team dinners outings, etc., of support to build self-esteem and team within the store.
Calculating the difference between the (P) and (O) scores resulted in a mean underscore by the (P) of -3.20 points. This shows the (P) was within reason, on average a little low, with their self-awareness. When the standard deviation was calculated it resulted in a score of 8.80. There were four scores that deviated from the mean by more than the first standard deviation thereby warranting further analysis. Two of the scores were overstated by the (P) Capable Management (5.89) and Enabling Leadership (8.65) and the two understated were Credible Leadership (-14.01) and Caring Leadership (-20.87).
The (P) needs to increase the amount of support given to his followers. Autonomy is great and (P) gives people all the autonomy they need, but (P) needs to follow up and make sure that their needs are being met and that he supports them by giving them the tools and opportunities they need to be successful. (P)’s training when he started in the jewelry business was, “Here are some keys, go sell something” and he has followed that lead. He could do better by showing he cares, as giving someone autonomy and letting them run could be taken as not caring instead of the show of confidence that (P) thinks he is giving by allowing them total autonomy.
The (P) underscored himself quite dramatically in the Credible Leadership and Caring Leadership sub-categories. The (P) assumed responsibility for his inability to promise results in some actions that were ultimately determined by a team that he led which affected his self-score in Credible Leadership. Caring Leadership is a lower score most likely because he has seen throughout the master’s program what kinds of things are considered beneficial to employees and are transformational. The (P) knows that his office does not do many of those things so his newfound awareness caused him to score himself more harshly. Armed with this newfound knowledge and awareness he can proceed to improve his inner thoughts to correlate them to his outer actions.
Conclusion
The participant has a base usage of both Transactional and Transformational leadership. Improvements can be achieved almost everywhere. The (O)’s who participated were a diverse group with a majority scoring the (P) in a new environment for him as leader of a large organization (130+ employees). So, his leadership abilities in this arena were being put to a new test.
The (P)’s self-awareness is fairly good as his points, and the (O)’s points were similar in many categories. Communication can be improved throughout the categories as it is an important part of being a leader and seemed to show up in the categories he scored lowest, including Leadership Communication. Giving support is another area where improvement can be made. The (P)’s tendency to give autonomy freely is great, however, he needs to be prescient of the need to remain in contact and be there to give support to make sure that followers have everything they need to succeed.
On the positive side, his Caring Leadership and Credible Leadership scores were great, with each over 60 points which are considered high scores in The Leadership Profile (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014). Continuing to work on those behaviors is important. Keeping promises realistic and keeping your word are great ways to improve Credibility. In the jewelry industry, it is referred to as under-promising and over-delivering. Understanding people where they are is a successful way to display Caring (Rosenbach & Sashkin, 2014).
References
Antoni, C. H., Baeten, X., Perkins, S. J., Shaw, J. D., & Vartiainen, M. (2017). Reward
management: Linking employee motivation and organizational performance. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 16(2), 57-60. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000187
DuBrin, A. J. (2015). Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills - Standalone
Book (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Halliwell, P. R., Mitchell, R. J., & Boyle, B. (2023). Leadership effectiveness through coaching:
Authentic and change-oriented leadership. PLoS
One, 18(12)https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294953
Hills, L. (2022). Improving your workplace experience to increase employee
productivity and engagement. The Journal of Medical Practice Management : MPM,
37(5), 234-239. https://sienaheights.idm.oclc.org/login?url=.?url=https://www-proquest-com.sienaheights.idm.oclc.org/scholarly-journals/improving-your-workplace-experience-increase/docview/2702262478/se-2
Lee, H., Woodward-Kron, R., Merry, A., & Weller, J. (2023). Emotions and team
communication in the operating room: a scoping review. Medical Education
Online, 28(1)https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2194508
Lester, P., Diener, E., & Seligman, M. (2022). Top performers have a superpower:
Happiness. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63(3), 57-61. Retrieved from https://sienaheights.idm.oclc.org/login?url=.?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/top-performers-have-superpower-happiness/docview/2641926943/se-2
References
Mazzetti, G., & Schaufeli, W. (2022). The impact of engaging leadership on employee
engagement and team effectiveness: A longitudinal, multi-level study on the mediating
role of personal- and team resources. PLoS One,
17(6)https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269433
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership : Theory and practice. http://cds.cern.ch/record/1630817
Rosenbach, W., & Sashkin, M. (2014). The leadership profile: On becoming a better leader through leadership that matters.
Wilson, M., Bathia, S., Morell, L., Gochyyev, P., Koo, B. W., & Smith, R. (2023). Seeking a better balance between efficiency and interpretability: Comparing the Likert response format with the Guttman response format. Psychological Methods, 28(6), 1358-1373. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000462
Xu, F., & Wang, X. (2019). Transactional leadership and dynamic capabilities: The mediating effect of regulatory focus. [Transactional leadership and dynamic capabilities] Management Decision, 57(9), 2284-2306. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2017-1151