HW for 2/25

One of the most prominent points from the readings was that of emotional intelligence and its contribution to leaders. Goleman lists several factors that make up this intelligence such as self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, motivation, social skills, etc. Leaders who possess such qualities are deemed to have emotional intelligence and this intelligence not only distinguishes outstanding leaders but can also be linked to strong company performance. Leaders of this type are not prisoners of their feelings; they are driven to achieve beyond expectations, and their friendliness and social skills always have a purpose. Going hand in hand with leaders who have emotional intelligence is that of the quiet leader discussed by Badaracco. He says that quiet leadership is the quickest way to make the world a better place as quiet leaders possess modesty and restraint along with being practical and effective leaders. Both types of leadership discount fiery temperaments and public displays of heroism. They should never use their power in a negative way, rather learn to be the bigger person and pick their battles. Both seem to argue that leadership has a very sound emotional and modest aspect as leaders are intrinsically motivated to help themselves and their organizations. In thinking about working for a company someday, would I want my boss to be understanding or a regimented tyrant? Almost everyone would argue that leaders who lead quietly, unobtrusively, and with their hearts are the leaders that really change our world. If we think back to a leader like MLK-he possessed almost every quality of Coleman's characteristics of emotional intelligence and although his voice was always heard, he lead modestly and effectively. In putting myself in a position of leadership, I would imagine it to be difficult to restrain myself from yelling at employees when I was frustrated, but in order for to really make a difference, I would have to master that urge as abusing my power would not make the company a better place.

A general, but rather undeniably important point penetrating throughout two of the readings was personality type and how it affects leaders. Maccoby teaches us that narcissists make for great leaders. They have compelling vision for companies and an overwhelming ability to attract followers-they are so obsessed with their own success that the company they are working for is guaranteed to succeed. These leaders do not see a future, rather they create their own future. They are incredibly charismatic and powerful speakers. However, obviously narcissistic leaders have their downfalls, chief among them they are ever so dependent on constant admiration from their followers. Upon getting this admiration, they feel less constraints, become more spontaneous, are bad at listening etc. Directly opposite to this type of personality leader would be Collins' description of a Level 5 leader- one that is anything but the 'hero' and 'larger than life'. Narcissists want to be and believe they are larger than life whereas Level 5 leaders possess humility and will- the key ingredients to their type of leadership. Like the quiet leader, a Level 5 leader is modest and shy but at the same time quite fearless. Which to choose? The reality is that both these types of personalities in leaders, in direct opposition to each other, do succeed. In applying this knowledge of the importance of personality types in leaders to my future plans, I would imagine it useful to understand the leadership strategies of companies I plan to work for. Many companies have their own leadership programs that they make you go through in order to train you for the specific type of leadership and companionship that they are looking for. Undoubtedly, there are several companies our there that have CEOs that are narcissistic and CEOs that are humble yet both are part of the Fortune 500 list. In knowing my personality, I think I would choose to work for a company that has a leader that is so intrinsically into their own success that the company's success will sore. For me, I know it would be encouraging to be around such strong charisma and motivation, yet as an underdog I probably would not be listened to at all. The emotional aspect or lack there of between my employer and I would be something I would have to be willing to sacrifice. In my opinion, as leadership styles seem to be a personal thing and a matter of personality type, so is who/where you choose to be a following of.

In the first class presentation, it was taught that it is overwhelmingly important to be a good listener. You should encourage others to talk about themselves to know you are listening, you should repeat back what they have told you and always make good eye contact. While being a good listener, it is important to show that you can relate to what they are saying and care to continue the conversation. When you do not exhibit good listening skills, it makes you appear to be more focused in what you have to say than the other person. Being a good listener is one of the most important qualities of being a good leader as well. However, it definitely is difficult to always be a good listener as it takes a high level engagement in all conversations. I feel as though I have always tried to be a good listener not only in academic environments, but in social ones as well. To me, being a good and helpful listener is one of the most important characteristics of being a good friend. I always try to genuinely be interested in what a friend is talking to me about so I can offer feedback and advice- especially when it pertains to an problem. It would be highly unappealing to me to be friends with someone who was not interested in what I had to say and did not exhibit qualities of a good listener as there is no point to interact with people who only 'hear themselves talk'. Also, when interviewing for jobs, I have learned that a potential employer always wants to hear and believe that you are a good listener.

In the second presentation, an important point was to make people feel important in a sincere way and that upon doing so, life is actually made easier. You should always 'do unto others as you want done to you' which is known as the Golden Rule. You should let people know you care about them in a way that does not represent falsity or flattery. It is completely obvious when you treat people in a fake way and it usually happens a lot today. There are obviously many situations that require people to be 'fake' such as being around someone you openly do not like but you would rather be cordial than be rude. Girls have the tendency and ability to be fake to people more so than guys do. If you cannot be genuinely nice to people, you should just not interact with them at all. I have grown up with my parents continually saying to treat people how you want to be treated- it is an obvious cliche but the importance it holds is invaluable. People do not realize that treating people right and making them feel important will ensure that they treat you back that way. I do not ever try to be fake to someone as it just seems like a waste of my time and if they did that back to me, it would not only be very clear, but it would really annoy me. I think most people would agree that it has always been ingrained in our heads that you should never treat or talk to someone in a way in which you, yourself would not like to be addressed. I feel like if I continually follow this and make sure I am sincere to others, I will not only feel better about myself, but I will make it so others do not feel a need to treat me in a 'fake' way.