Personal Leadership Development

PERSONAL LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PLAN

FOR ARIC HALL

By: Aric Hall

Completed in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of
OM 5116 Personal Leadership Development
Capella University
Summer, 2007
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
E-Mail:
Instructor:

Personal Leadership Development

Abstract
Title
Personal Leadership Development Plan for Aric Hall
Abstract
The author strives to establish a foundation for leadership, by listing those leadership concepts
that serve as his guiding light to leading others. From their, the author provides areas of
leadership that apply those concepts in sharing a vision, modeling the way, and providing
support for others in an organization. The author attempts to support his leadership values
through several assessments, feedback, and a leader interview.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. i
Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Introduction

Leadership Framework A statement of personal values, goals, and mission

Leadership Concept
Leadership Research Interests
Leadership Theories & Bases

1
2
3

Leader Interview

Emotional Intelligence Overview

EQ In-Action Profile
Leadership Assessments
Leadership Practices Inventory LPI 360
Life Learning Review
DiSC Results
Campbell Leadership Descriptor
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
My Assessment Outcomes
Coaching & Feedback
Developmental Activities
Evaluating Progress

9
12
12
14
15
17
18
20
21
21
22

Conclusion Becoming a Person That People Will Want to Follow

24

Appendix A Interview with a Leader

25

References

28

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 1
Introduction

The project element of this assignment is not a heavily involved process. In the first part,
I will complete and include some of the leadership assessments from this course and a couple of
others. This will serve as an assessment of my leadership abilities and provide an opportunity
for personal reflection. The second part will be to solicit feedback from some of the individuals I
work with or around. This will include a couple of subordinates, peers, and even some younger
college students. The idea is to get a feel for what others think of my leadership style and values,
and to identify what those individuals look for from their leaders and supervisors.
Leadership Framework
Leadership Concept
My personal definition or concept of leadership includes several components. First,
leadership that is positive and desirable must have an ethical dimension. Second, great leaders
are servant leaders, expressing a genuine concern for their followers and giving them all the tools
and training necessary to excel (Greenleaf, 1977). Third, I have long seen myself in the
Zaleznik's concept of the twice-born leader, where individuals who face many challenges in life
have a greater predisposition toward leadership greatness (Zaleznik, 1977).
Leadership is a relationship, a process, and an influence (Clark & Clark, 1996).
Leadership is a grouping of leaders on the same level or between leaders and followers.
Leadership is transformational, where individuals challenge each other and support each other to
develop the individuals and the organization and raise them all to a higher level. While I do not
see leadership as a personality trait, it does require a strong personality that will not be abrasive
to those who are led.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 2

Leadership is situational (Clark & Clark, 1996). Before attempting to define leadership,
we must first set the context. While a person must exhibit all of the behavioral and relational
aspects to qualify as a respected and effective leader, he must be flexible to exhibit different
leadership skills as the situation warrants.
Research Interests
A concept or research interest for me deals with trust in leadership. Trust is a bedrock
element of leadership. It may also be conspicuously absent from many leadership or supposedly
leadership relationships. The hostilities, vying for control, and competition within organizations
seems indicative that there are few trusting relationships. In some organizations where younger
adults occupy leadership roles, there is often juvenile and immature behavior, as well as a lack of
experience in leadership. There is no servant leader looking out for the welfare and development
of all of his people. Trust means that one person can open up and disclose all manner of personal
concerns without fear. To have trust in another is to expect the other to do their job, do it
entirely, and to carry their own weight. Trust is an element of leadership that has to be looked at
in a one-on-one context. This means that trust in leadership is built on the interpersonal level,
rather than by the larger context of organizational leadership as a whole. It is this students
opinion that the value people would place on absolute trust is in fact invaluable.
Trust may mean different things to different people in different organizational settings.
As such, trust research must begin by noting the context. Individuals should be asked what trust
means to them and what value they place on it if it exists. In a white-collar job, it will not mean
the same thing as it does in a battlefield unit. Each individual should be asked to think about
how he would change his working relationship with a leader if he knew the leader could be
trusted with absolute trust. Would he disclose more? Would he trust that leader with his life?

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 3

Would he trust the leader with his career, training opportunities, opportunities for further
responsibilities and development? Could he trust that leader with all of his earthly possessions?
Research subjects might also contribute their experiences, where there was or was not a trusting
relationship. For comparative purposes, participants can provide a score or rank as to their
experiences in trust, which can subsequently be compared with similar rankings by those in high
trust relationship or who will participate in a trust-based leadership experiment. This researcher
wants to make it far more personal. What would it take for the subordinate, follower, or research
participant in front of me to put absolute trust in me?
Leadership Theories & Bases
Laissez-faire Leadership: This is a hands-off approach to leadership. It is not leadership,
but rather abandons any hope, direction, or effort of leadership to someone else, if to anyone
(Northouse, 2004).
Trait Theory: Trait theory proposes that there are natural, biological characteristics that a
person is born with that predispose them to great leadership. It also gave rise to the great man
theory, where only those with the right personality characteristics could lead. If a person is not
born with the right characteristics, then he could never lead (Bass, 1990; Jago, 1982; and
Stogdill, 1948).
Style Approach: The style approach looks at leadership behavior, how the leader acts
and what he does. It is composed of task behaviors and relationship behaviors. The Ohio State
Studies grouped leadership style behaviors into two categories: initiating structure and
consideration. The former pertains to task-orientation, organization, defining role
responsibilities, and giving structure to work. Consideration behaviors pertain to relationships,
camaraderie, respect, trust, and some degree of friendship between superiors and subordinates.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 4

The University of Michigan Studies looked at employee orientation and production orientation,
or a people/process orientation or task/production orientation. This study observed the impact of
a leaders behavior on the performance of small groups. Blake and Mouton designed a
leadership grid that likewise plotted concern for production and concern for people, producing
resulting leadership/management styles (Blake, 1985; and Northouse, 2004).
Skills Approach: Skills theory postulates that leadership is based on more than
personality, such as skills that can be learned and developed. These include technical or jobcompetence skills, human or interpersonal skills, and conceptual skills or the ability to think,
create, and innovate. Leadership depends on ones capabilities (Bass, 1990; and Katz, 1955).
Contingency Theory: Contingency theory is a close relation to situational leadership. It
attempts to match the best leader to the appropriate situation, or a match between leadership style
and the situation. One leader is not the best or most effective leader in every situation (Fiedler,
1984).
Situational Leadership: Situational leadership holds that different situations require
different types, styles, and methods of leadership. Either a change in the leadership role or in the
behaviors, techniques, and decisions of the leader vary based on the situation at hand.
Situational leadership is composed of both a directive (task) and supportive (people) dimension.
Situational leadership may also require the leader to match his leadership style to that of his
subordinates (Blanchard, 1985; Graeff, 1997; and Northouse, 2004).
Path-Goal Theory: This looks at how leaders motivate subordinates to accomplish
different goals. Path-goal defines goals, clarifies the path, removes obstacles, and provides
support. This includes the use of specific leadership behaviors: directive leadership, supportive
leadership, participative leadership, and achievement-oriented leadership. The leader may be

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 5

directive in decision making or share in the decision making (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; and
House, 1974).
Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory: LMX theory conceptualizes leadership as a
process and interaction between leaders and followers. It sees leadership as a dyadic
relationship, or one of multiple vertical relations between the leader and each follower. There
are also extra-roles or expanded responsibilities of the in group, and there are the formal
responsibilities and defined roles of the out group. The leaders and followers within the in group
do more for each other, and in turn are given more responsibilities within that group. High
quality leader-member exchanges result in greater performance evaluations, less turnover, more
commitment, better work assignments, better attitudes, more participation in leadership, and
greater career progress. LMX describes and then prescribes leadership. It works by focusing on
the special, unique relationship that leaders create with others (Graen, 1976; and Scandura,
1999).
Transactional Theory: Transactional leadership theory is really a poor example of
leadership. It is more an example of politics in organizations. It is a tit-for-tat exchange. Ill
scratch your back if youll scratch mine. It is about mutual exchanges and compromises, not
about doing what is right or best for the organization (Northouse, 2004).
Transformational Leadership: Transformational leadership is not limited to a leader
transforming and influencing followers. It is about leaders and followers transforming each
other and the collective whole. This is where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Transformational leaders engage others, thus creating a connection that raises the level of
motivation and morality. It changes and transforms all individuals, treating all as equal human
beings. It moves followers to accomplish more than merely what is expected of them. James

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 6

MacGregor Burns was the first person who built upon this theory by trying to link leaders and
followers in a relationship. Bass argued that transformational leadership motivates followers to
do more than expected by raising followers levels of consciousness regarding goals, getting
followers to transcend their own self-interest, and moving followers to address higher level
needs. Transformational leadership is not merely directive. It is concerned with the performance
and development of followers to their maximum potential. Such leaders often have strong
internal ideas and values, and they are capable of motivating followers to act in ways that
support the greater good rather than acting out of self-interest. This can also include
individualized consideration, where the leader understands the unique differences of each
individual and responds accordingly (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985; Bass, 1999; Dvir, 2002;
Eisenbach, 1999; Wofford, 2001; and Northouse, 2004).
Team Leadership: There is extensive study on leadership in teams. This may involve
any combination of the previous theories, but is a very complex thing to attempt to understand.
Work teams often fail for poor supervision, an inappropriate mix of team members, or a general
lack of leadership within the team. Supervision is often to blame for the failure of self-managed
teams. You might also see that this student does not care much for any team management or
team leadership.
Servant Leadership: Servant leadership builds upon transformational leadership. It is
derived from two primary sources: the writings of Robert Greenleaf and the Bible. The idea is
that people produce best when the leader takes care of the follower, by meeting their personal
needs and supporting them in the workplace. The Hawthorne Studies showed that people
produce more when they feel like someone is watching, whether it is because they know a
supervisor is watching or because they feel like someone cares. People want to be listened to

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 7

and cared for. When they work in a rare organization that cares for its people, they take care of
the organization. Southwest Airlines boasts a corporate culture where the customer comes
second, because the employees take care of the customers if the employees are cared for.
Servant leadership also proves the importance of a strong relationship built on mutual trust and
respect (Aronson, 2001; Autry, 2001; Blanchard, 2003; Blanchard, 1999; Dickson, 1995;
Greenleaf, 1977; Greenleaf, 1998; Greenleaf, 2003; Maxwell, 2002; Mulford, 1996; Russell,
2002; Spears, 2002; and Whetstone, 2002).
Twice-Born Leaders: Twice-born leaders have had a difficult struggle through life. Like
Job in the Old Testament, they have gone through the refiners fire and come forth as pure gold.
They cannot be easily stopped. They are persistent and determined, as they have had to be
throughout life. They dont stop when the paycheck stops or when someone throws up a
roadblock. Where most would surrender at the first salvo from the enemy, these people plan for
the counterstrike. It does not necessarily mean that they have a type A personality or the desire
to dominate or control an organization. In fact, they may never hold a position of responsibility,
working instead behind the scenes (Zaleznik, 1977; Bennis, 2003; and Clark & Clark, 1996).
Leader Interview
In an interview with an experienced leader, it can be seen that leadership may be in a high
level or perhaps in a seemingly insignificant role (Appx. A). Leadership can also be a fluid role,
where the role of leader passes from one person to another, or team member roles can shift to
give each team member experience as a leader or follower. Leadership also requires knowing
when to yield to the expertise or first hand knowledge of the subordinate, as was the case with
the leaders dean. Leadership can quickly go sour, when there is a lack of communication or
when someone has a lone ranger style of leadership.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 8

Emotional Intelligence Overview

Emotional intelligence is an ability to understand and capitalize on ones own emotions
and the emotions or feelings of those around them (Abraham, 1999). It is an ability to use
knowledge of emotions to solve problems within organizations. Research has shown a
connection between the application of emotional intelligence to improved organizational
performance and productivity (Goleman, 2004). Some of the key elements of emotional
intelligence address a leaders ability to exhibit self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation,
empathy, and to manage social skills.
The application of flexible leadership styles, in the context of situational leadership,
depends on a leaders understanding of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2000). The four
general areas of emotional intelligence are: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,
and social skill. I feel that I have an accurate self-awareness, knowing my own emotions,
knowing my limitations, and quite frankly having self-confidence only in some situations.
Under self-management, I may have to deal with my emotions and frustrations, but I know how
to do that. I also have the initiative to go after new goals that I set for myself. Under social
awareness, I have developed an appreciation for a lot of rough experiences that people have
endured, because I have been there myself. I understand the politics of organizations. However,
I am not an extroverted type, and I do not attract a large following. Under social skill, I have
limited influence, and I only have vision on some of my own great ideas. I have learned how to
be a good communicator and therefore a listener. I pride myself on building interpersonal bonds,
but only with small numbers of individuals. Teamwork and collaboration are nice, when you
have a small, highly committed, competent team. Most teams fall short of success, due to poor

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 9

team assembly or due to the politics involved between functional departments represented on
those teams.
I have talked to several individuals I work with or have worked over, regarding these
emotional intelligence topics. Since trust-building is the item of greatest importance in my
concept of leadership, I solicited feedback on trust, as I often do. The young men I have worked
with in a volunteer organization tell me that they can talk to me. I have at least two individuals
who acknowledge that they confide in me. On the subject of developing others, communication,
and feedback, several of my subordinates acknowledge that I do listen. While they tell me that I
may not know everything about a given task or job to be performed (and I dont), I do take their
advice in assigning roles or preparing for an activity or training exercise. In discussing teambuilding, one person told me of a situation where I had diffused a very hostile confrontation.
Another simply stated that my being there helped to keep our group organized and focused, so
that everyone knew what to do.
EQ In-Action Profile
The EQ profile was used to provide a snapshot of my core emotional capacities (EQ).
This assessment is used to interpret my experience as I relate to others around me. My responses
to the assessment scenarios reflect my internalized relationship map, which has been developed
throughout my life. This tool is based on a developmental model of emotional intelligence. It
measures intrapersonal and interpersonal capacities, competencies, or traits. The capacities
include the capacity for self-reflection, self-regulation, and empathy. These capacities serve as
building blocks for emotional intelligence. My ratings on the six dimensions of this profile are
discussed next.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 10

I am optimally fit on self-other orientation. This implies that I am able to focus on

myself and others during an interpersonal exchange. I agree with the assessment on this one. In
life, I try to maintain a high positive regard for others. I am interested in their concerns and their
point of view, just as I want them to be interested in what I have to say. As the assessment
points out, I respect the experience and intelligence of other members of my team.
I am very fit in my ability to access a wide range of feelings. This means that I can cover
a variety of emotional feelings while under stress, such as love, sadness, and joy. Emotions are
what drive our decisions and actions, so our emotions should be assessed. Though I have not
spent a lot of time assessing my emotional health, I do tend to agree with the assessment.
Emotions can determine my perception of another person. They do provide meaning to what I
observe, such as whether I am sincerely concerned about a persons problem or I think they just
like to complain. That varies per person, per situation.
The assessment says that I have limited access to feelings of love, while having a great
deal of anxiety. I do agree with the level of anxiety. Negative experiences are in ample supply.
Those experiences create experience which probably biases my opinions of a person or their
statements to me. I have a problem with the assertion on love. I do have a genuine concern for
others, especially if they are trying to be a vital part of the work environment. I like teamwork
and I encourage creativity. I even pride myself on the ability to build trusting relationships.
I have a fit level of reliance on thoughts, wants, and feelings. This indicates that I can
understand and communicate with a variety of people. I do agree. Cultural differences, and
dealing with people from different professions, can be difficult. However, I have learned to
appreciate those differences. This strength fosters an environment where people can work

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 11

together, building a relationship of trust and predictability. It is this dimension that provides a
balance or a rudder to the game of life when stress gets too much.
Within that dimension, I rely heavily on wants. This is probably true. It means I am able
to take decisive action, where I am likely to exert command and control. It also means that I
have a clear picture of a problem or where I want to take an organization. I am advised that such
strength could come across as being pushy. I should be mindful of my consideration toward
other people in the process of taking actions.
According to the assessment, I have a high negative orientation, viewing the situation or
the involved parties in a negative light. I am warned that I may be intolerant or otherwise hostile
to others. I disagree with the findings. It is experience that tells me when to take a negative
position on a person or situation. Even the findings of the assessment acknowledge that I may be
able to see problems or pitfalls earlier than others would.
My profile determined that my empathy accuracy and empathy compassion is hopeless.
It opined that I am upset when I erroneously read what others are thinking or feeling. Personally,
I dont think that I tend to misjudge others. My perceptions of others are usually not formed
until I have some reason to form opinions. The assessment suggests that I seek to learn more
about others involved, before I end up ruining positive relationships. Similarly, the profile states
that I have trouble understanding someone when they appear to be challenging me. That can be
true, if I feel threatened in my position. The assessment suggests that I attempt to identify those
triggers that set me off. Im afraid I have to get off the boat with the profile on this one. I seek
to understand others, and I am most interested in building positive relationships.
The EQ profile goes on to say that I have a high level of trust in myself and others, and
that this is my predominant relationship style. I am able to empathize with and feel compassion

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 12

for another. I agree with this finding, but it seems to contradict the emotional determinations
above. I am open to learning about others, and I have the capacity to welcome differences of
opinion.
Leadership Assessments
Leadership Practices Inventory LPI 360
This section incorporates the summation of the findings from the leadership practices
inventory conducted on the author (Kouzes & Posner, 2003). In addition to my own
autobiographical assessments, I contacted several other individuals I work closely with to get
their feedback on me. I think there are two areas of concern for the accuracy of these
assessments. One, these individuals are all close to me, so they know me much better than
perhaps distant supervisors or colleagues. Second, these individuals are all close to me, so they
may not be entirely frank about their feedback of someone close to them.
Having offered those caveats, the findings are not a real surprise. The things that I pride
myself on and take time and energy to develop are those things that I am rated well on by all
others. These include: setting an example, praising others, keeping my promises, treating others
with dignity and respect, and others. My chosen supervisor was more middle-of-the-road on
everything. I think this is due to the fact that he does not always see how I work with or
communicate with subordinates. He did however rate me highly on areas such as the big-picture
or vision and on developing cooperative relationships. If there were any upsets it would be
colleagues and subordinates giving lower marks on my giving support to team members and
giving people freedom and choice about how to accomplish their work. That is really not a
surprise. Several years ago I received negative feedback from some team members following
a large project, regarding my support of the team. I sometimes get confused by conflicting

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 13

feedback, having negative feedback on my work with a team but receiving high regard for my
support for the individual or on my interpersonal efforts.
In examining my first impressions (step 1), I would say that my response was largely
neutral. I am pleased that all individuals I work closest with or have authority over give positive
feedback on my support and concern for them. I am still confused and conflicted by the
sometimes negative feedback on my support for the team or in giving useful feedback to a team.
In observing consistency from all observers (step 2), most of the feedback is in line with my own
self-assessments. It is the subordinates or direct reports who rate me highest on my respect for
them, their dignity, and other personal support for them. It is the peers who rate me lower on
team issues that I rate myself. It is the superiors who see me as having a better vision for the
future and having a greater sense of pride and meaning in my work than what I self-report. I
make some general conclusions about patterns and what can be learned from these assessments
(step 3). I think there is largely agreement from all parties that I am strong in leadership
modeling. The only possible issue for me is if there is a job task or training objective that I am
not comfortable with or thoroughly knowledgeable. This is a scenario in which I would rather
yield to someone else, acknowledge my weaknesses, and avoid losing credibility. I am rated
well on my sense of shared vision and in communicating the vision. I seek out opportunities to
challenge myself, within limits. I do not want to take on something I cannot handle. I score
moderately on enabling others to act. I only run into problems in sometimes building consensus
among organizational members who all have a different idea of what to do in a situation. I am
moderate at encouraging the heart. I do praise people and attempt to reward people. However,
sometimes rewarding people may not be an adequate reward, and some team members may feel
like they did more than they receive credit for, leading to those negative team feedback points.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 14

What I enjoy and what I want to focus on are: modeling the way, inspiring a shared
vision, and challenging the process. What I may need improvement on are: enabling others to
act and encouraging the heart. So, those are the two I focused on for this assignment. To that
end, I need to focus more on group communication, team member input at each stage of a team
event, and ensuring that everyone has a say. Further, I can allow for more rotations or crosstraining. We do that anyway, but often individuals feel that they are still left out or that they
only have a menial role. I need to put more effort in encouraging individuals to complain as we
go, rather than waiting until they have an opportunity to give negative feedback sometime later
down the road. I must also focus on recognizing even the smallest contributions and rewarding
everyone, not just the stars.
Life Learning Review
As another assessment, in connection with the assessments, I also completed the Life
Learning Review (Life). This is also a self-assessment. I give myself the highest ratings on
attention to detail. I also rated myself highly on the competencies of creativity, being
dependable, caring, and feeling in control. I do prioritize and finish the tasks I start, but to an
outside observer I would appear disorganized because I have too many irons in the fire. I noted
that I am trustworthy, though not always trusting. I am quite limited in my willingness to
confide in others, though I want others to confide in me. Being a friend to others means that I
must be supportive and willing to sacrifice, and I do feel comfortable with that. I noted my top
ten values as: honesty and integrity, individualism, curiosity, competition, respect,
responsibility, self-awareness, human relationships, truth, and winning. I do believe that these
values are closely tied to my assessments and those of my coach. Further, some of these items
were included in the assessments earlier.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 15

DiSC Results
My highest dimensions on understanding my environment are dominance and
conscientiousness. Dominant types like to take action to achieve the results they desire.
Conscientious types like to be precise and maintain focus. They value quality and accuracy. I
believe that this is accurate in analyzing myself. I like to be productive and that requires
organization. I am annoyed by individuals who are in my way, slowing me down, or otherwise
exhibit a lack of organization and planning abilities.
Those high in dominance tend to take on a wide variety of tasks. Likewise, I am
involved in multiple academic programs, self-employment, legal cases, and other pursuits, all at
once. A certain amount of stress in life is necessary, rewarding, and providing the challenge to
motivate me to do more. It is also true that dominant types need to have a structured and
predictable work environment. Frequent surprises, changes, and variability inhibits productivity.
Dominance in behavior or work style does not necessarily mean that I have to be in
control. I do feel the need to lead, because I am a determined individual when it comes to
solving organizational problems. However, I do not have a need to control people or
organizations for my own personal agenda.
In the D dimension of my intensity analysis, I am said to be egocentric, direct, daring,
domineering, and demanding. I do not find these results to be flattering. I am self-focused and
despise red tape, but I do not believe that I am self-absorbed. I am direct, as people know where
I stand. I am only overly blunt when confronted with crime and corruption within organizations.
I do not believe I am a domineering person, as I listen to input from others, though I am decisive
on goals. I am demanding on things being done right, but not to the point of being inconsiderate
of my men.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 16

In the I dimension of my intensity analysis, I am pessimistic, aloof, withdrawn, selfconscious, and reticent. I would not have ever described myself as pessimistic. I am a rugged
individualist and I like to work independently, but I am not averse to working with a productive
team where appropriate. I am not withdrawn from all relationships, but I do need time alone to
be productive. I am self-conscious as to my strengths and weaknesses, and I am only willing to
take calculated risks.
In the S dimension of my intensity analysis, I am mobile, outgoing, alert, eager, critical,
discontented, and fidgety. I can be flexible, but not to the point of thriving in a chaotic and
unpredictable environment. I am not very outgoing in relational or social settings, and I certainly
am not extroverted. I do not see myself as being overly eager, only devoted and determined to
complete the task at hand. I can be very critical, because I want people to work and work well.
In the C dimension of my intensity analysis, I am a perfectionist, accurate, fact-finder,
diplomatic, systematic, conventional and courteous. I expect the best, but will celebrate the
learning found in some mistakes, not necessarily requiring perfection. I do focus on accuracy
and facts. I am diplomatic in my communication and listening skills. I am systematic and
conventional in my focus on getting a job done. I am always courteous and respectful to those I
work with or over.
My classical pattern is shown to be creative. I sometimes do seek unique and creative
solutions. I can be aggressive demeanor to get what I want, but that is usually where there is a
clear right and wrong, not to control and manipulate other people. The analysis accurate states
that I am not on a power-trip, but I thrive in an atmosphere where I can try bold ideas and
initiatives. However, I do not see change as exhilarating, preferring stability. The analysis states
that I refrain from showing emotions, and that is true up to a point.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 17

My work habits show that I prefer progressive problem solving ideas. I can be innovative
and insightful in recommending solutions. I am quick thinking in those areas that I am
thoroughly knowledgeable, while in other matters I need time to research and consider options. I
do consider myself a strategist, having foresight. I strongly disagree with the findings of the
analysis that says I ignore interpersonal relationships. I value those relationships among men
committed to the mission, but I will destroy relationships with those who have some motive that
is destructive to the organization or its mission. I like the summary statement that finds me to be
a driven innovator who greatly increases the organizations odds of success.
In providing a positive climate for me to flourish, I need choices and decision-making
authority. I am productive when I direct the affairs of the organization. I flourish in a
competitive environment and I need to focus on getting results. I have a need to lead and need
an environment where I can build accomplishments through my own expertise. Supervisors need
to understand that I am not an extrovert and that I may be reserved in social settings. I
communicate succinctly, opting to avoid meaningless conversation.
Campbell Leadership Descriptor
The Campbell Leadership Descriptor is an entirely subjective assessment tool. Since I
am choosing the answers that describe myself, I have to agree with the conclusions. It is
designed to help aspiring leaders think of essential and universal components of leadership,
applicable to any setting (Campbell, 2002). This can identify areas that need improvement.
Throughout this assessment, I gave myself similar marks to my sample good leader. As
it pertains to vision, I see myself as being fairly farsighted, enterprising, persuasive, and
resourceful. As a manager, I consider myself to have the highest level of dedication, on being
systematic, and being dependable. I also consider myself good at being focused and having a

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 18

tendency to delegate. In empowerment, I may not be as trusting of others as I want them to trust
me. But, I score highly with encouraging, mentoring, perception, and support. In a diplomatic
role, I do see myself as earning the greatest trust, with high marks in being diplomatic, tactful,
and well-connected. In giving feedback, I consider myself good at coaching, teaching, listening,
and being numerically astute. As an entrepreneur, I consider myself to be adventuresome,
creative, and durable. Under my personal style, I am highly credible and experienced, and I am
also good at expressing optimism and being a role model. In personal energy, I am moderately
physically fit, balanced, energetic, and publicly impressive.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
The Myers-Briggs assessment is also largely subjective (Briggs, 1998). I personally find
it difficult to interpret, due to the questions. Many of the questions I could have answered either
way, depending on the situation or circumstances. The assessment considers four categories.
This includes extraversion or introversion, sensing or intuition, thinking or feeling, and judging
or perceiving. Based on my determined preferences, the assessment then seeks to determine if I
am just slightly in that preference or greatly so.
I scored just slightly in the introverted category. I agree with this, knowing that I look
inside for direction, understanding, and meaning. I also score slightly into the sensing category.
This means that I focus on the present and rely on concrete information. I score strongly in the
thinking category. It is true that I base my decisions on logic and objective analysis. I score
very strongly in the judging category. Here, I like a very well planned and orchestrated approach
to life.
With this ISTJ combination, the profile states that I should be quiet, serious, thorough,
dependable, practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible. I should be using logic to decide

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 19

on a course of action, and then work on it steadily. I also make everything orderly and
organized, valuing tradition and loyalty. I do agree with this nutshell assessment of myself.
Further, I believe a couple of these elements were affirmed by the other assessment instruments.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 20
My Assessment Outcomes

Assessment
Tool

Areas of
Strength

New
What I
Possibilities for Learned About
Stretch
Myself

Focus for
Learning and
Attention

Learning in
Action (EQ)

Strong areas: self-other

orientation, access to
wide range of feelings,
reliance on wants, and a
high level of trust in self
and others

Weak areas: negative

orientation, empathy
accuracy, and empathy
compassion

I learned that I disagree

with the assessment on
the weak areas,
believing that the
difference may be due
to experience or
situational factors

Seek feedback that

might offer a dissenting
point of view

Campbell
Leadership
Descriptor

Strong vision, highly

dedicated and
dependable, fairly
strong focus; Strong
empowerment where
trusting relationship
exists

Focus on building those

relationships built on
trust

Little: This is a
subjective assessment
that reflected my
current positive
opinions of myself

There is always room to

improve on listening,
even to a dissenting
voice, in order to better
respond to the needs of
people

Myers Briggs
Type

ISTJ: Slightly
introverted, looking
inward for direction;
Slightly into sensing
category, relying on
concrete information;
Strong thinker, using
logic and objective
analysis; Very strong in
judging, seeking a
planned and organized
life

Introverts may lack the

social/people skills to
build teams; Thinkers
may need more intuition
and creativity common
to visionary leaders

I agree with the findings

Look for more open

communication and
involvement, and seek
creative ideas and
solutions

Values
Inventory

Experience: belief that

experience changes
perspectives, provides
learning, and makes the
man.

Power/Dominance:
always self-evaluate to
make sure that power is
empowerment and used
constructively.

Integrity/Honesty:
foundational
characteristics of a
positive leader.

Need career growth and

executive opportunities.

Experiences change
perception; Internalized
values determine if I
will choose to be a
leader for good or for
ill. Values inventory is
a self-reflection to
assess where I stand.

How to apply this in

life, behavior, and
relationship; Further
how to use this in future
teaching and consulting
in developing others.

Top 10 Values:
honesty, integrity,
individualism, curiosity,
competition, respect,
responsibility, selfawareness,
relationships, truth, and
winning

Always ensure that

feelings of competition
and dominance are
directed for a good
cause, against external
competitors, and against
criminal or corrupt
forces.

My values are closely

tied to my assessments,
and those of my coach.
Agenda for future
leadership development
focuses on career and
job opportunities that
coincide with needed
job competencies and
leadership skills.

Being too busy can

result in values not
being exhibited, such as
when one neglects those
around him. Be
mindful of
commitments and
prioritize carefully.

Life Learning
Review

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 21
Coaching & Feedback

In conversations with other peers, supervisors, professionals, and my leadership

interview, I find that others are impressed with my understanding of myself and what I feel is
important. Perhaps there is a subjective bias, given the limited contact and the discussions with
individuals personally acquainted with me. Those who work closest to me simply reiterate the
things that I speak about as being important, such as building and proving trust in the leadership
relationship. I hear restatements of my words: trust, respect, dignity, and confidence. I speak of
open communication, and this is one of the items stressed in my leadership interview. There is
some mutual agreement as to what is important for a developing leader to focus on. It is
interesting to note that the individuals who agree with my self-assessments are the people who
work closest with me. I am sure that some of the unethical individuals and even criminals I have
fought against in organizations would not rate my leadership self-assessments as being accurate.
It is a matter or perspective.
Developmental Activities
I have listed some of the suggestions in response to the EQ profile findings. I should try
to identify any events of anxiety, accept them, but let them drift past like a cloud on a windy day
(Johnson, 2003). I should also identify my negative feelings toward others and other situations,
and look for ways to stop my negative responses. Similarly, I should deliberately think of
positive and encouraging things to say to someone I might have negative tendencies toward.
One of the elements of empathy is the need to actively listening to others, with the intent to
understand. Another idea to build empathetic understanding, which also serves to strengthen
relationships, is to get to know the other person. The author also advises individuals to use
appreciative inquiry, where we move from problem-solving to an appreciation of ourselves and

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 22

others. As with any effective communication, both parties should communicate and make
inquiries so as to understand the other.
I need opportunities to realize my career goals, as well as my goals in leadership training
and development. I have already attained most of the education, with the PhD notwithstanding.
I am interested in obtaining work experiences and job assignments, coupled with the
improvements in job competencies. This is a difficult area, having limited experience. In the
near future, I will probably complete an internship that is related to some of my career
development goals. Similarly, I intend to begin participating again in one or more volunteer
organizations that directly relate to my career interests in university student affairs. Over the
course of the next year, I intend to gain full-time employment, either with a university or in a
financial management trainee program. These are my two primary career paths. Through the
combination of work experience and continuing my PhD program, I believe I will see
opportunities to apply my leadership training and values.
My values are subjective, but they reflect my experience, education, training, and my
philosophy of leadership. My personal leadership agenda is devoted to others as to myself. I
want to develop and train others, through coaching, mentoring, and team work. This is rooted in
the spirit of servant leadership. As I am devoted to my people, I am committed to their personal
and professional development, and to their contribution in the organizational setting.
Evaluating Progress
I cannot stress enough the importance of communication and feedback. I usually like to
know what the people who work with me think. I certainly want to know what those under my
authority think. I despise yes men, preferring to hear what I need to hear, not what I want to

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 23

hear. I want to continue to focus on building relationships within an environment of open

communication. I need to hear the thoughts, concerns, and complaints of my co-workers.
Work experience and career progression must be evaluated every year or two. This is
just an informal observation of my work environment, compared to my career plans and goals. If
I am not getting the desired positions or job responsibilities, then I might be doing something
wrong. On the other hand, it may just be a matter of collecting the required experience. In any
event, career development takes time.
In evaluating career progression, the milestones seem to be at three, five, and seven years.
This can be extended if there are periods of unemployment or if I work in jobs from more than
one career track. Basically, in three years, I can be a mid-level manager or in a well-paying
lower level management position. In five years, I could be a director of a small residence life
program or be a project director. In seven years, I could be a professor or non-academic
department head. At ten years, I would either be a director in residence life, consultant,
researcher, or perhaps seeking a deans position. With each progression there is more, and more
unique, opportunities to practice, study, and impart leadership.
In my personal case, I will likely take a developmental approach that is not the most
popular. The best advice for most people is to be a specialist, to do one thing and do it well.
That is good and practical, especially starting out. But, I have more than one career interest. My
major or primary interests are university student affairs and finance. Lesser interests include
certain civil service jobs, law enforcement, probation, juvenile corrections, investigative work, or
intelligence positions. However, most of these jobs I would want only limited experience in.
Further, I can tie those experiences to elements of my primary jobs or to my research interests. If
I do accomplish a complex career map as that, I would be well rounded in experience. This

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 24

might prove most helpful for a future role as a professor, consultant, or president of something.
Someone who only specializes in a field does not necessarily make a good generalist.
Organizational leaders, executive leaders, or presidents need to be well versed. This is the model
career track that I am working toward. The result is that the career development could take twice
as long. So, specializing in one or two areas, complete with breadth and depth experience, is still
a wise approach to take in the short-term.
Conclusion Becoming a Person That People Will Want to Follow
In understanding ones potential for leadership, there must first be a statement of values
or philosophy of leadership. This learner begins with a strong foundation of theories and
concepts of leadership, then supports that through assessments, experiences, and feedback from
those around him. Ultimately, the challenge that always remains is the application and
implementation of leadership within organizations. To maintain the highest standards of
leadership and to be the leader that others want to follow, there must always be an open door for
open communication and feedback.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 25

Appendix A Interview with a Leader

I spoke with Jonathan Walker, an instructor, department chair, and retired police officer.
This is an individual I have had classes with and talked to over a number of years. Criminal
justice is also one of my career fields, so he is a relevant person to talk to. He is familiar with
research in the field, and he has occupied a number of roles throughout his career.
1. What situations have you been in that required good leadership and organization skills on
your part?
Jonathan spoke of several examples where leadership was involved, even though he did not
necessarily think of those events as big leadership roles at the time. He went back years to his
role on police task forces, specifically on drug enforcement efforts. Those activities would
require planning and coordination, advanced research or stakeouts to identify suspects and drug
transactions, and ultimately coordination in apprehending those suspects. This was where he
came in, from participating in and supervising those enforcement efforts. From a leadership
standpoint, he addressed the importance of training, role assignments, and communicating to
each person what was expected of them. The risks that would result from any
miscommunication could be great.
Other leadership settings he addressed were faculty and campus committee meetings. As a
department chair he has had to make presentations to convince the dean as to what courses to
offer or program changes to be made. This required him to consolidate information from faculty,
staff, student demands, and even state regulatory requirements concerning the content that has to
be taught for licensure purposes. The leadership involved is his ability to communicate
effectively, to receive and give the correct message, and to bring of people together and
influence those individuals to support agreeable changes or program offerings.
2. Working with or under other individuals in a leadership role, can you give examples of
good and bad leadership experiences?
For a good leadership experience, he again refers to his dean. The dean has been there for
years. He has an open-door policy. He does not micro-manage. He is very receptive to
whatever the other faculty members need. This is an individual who offers a very supportive
leadership role.
As a bad experience, he mentions a supervisor he had years ago. Everyone really wanted the
guy to be replaced. He was a one-man show. There was no sense of support, respect, or even
attention.
3. What incidents stand out as opportunities for leadership on your part?
Jonathan feels that some of the teams he worked with or led in law enforcement were far
more rewarding. Everyone worked together. They had the same background, interests, and
objectives at hand. However, he says that working with students is what he enjoys now, sense he
retired from law enforcement.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 26

4. What steps did you take, such as assigning roles and responsibilities?
In his police career, everyone had the same basic set of skills. However, individuals had
their own specific role. Some would be undercover making transactions, others would be on
entry teams, and others would serve in an administrative role trying to identify suspects in
advance. In those small groups, assignments were made based on preferences and training. He
does point out however, that most of these individuals had training in each area, so changing
those assignments or roles were always an option based upon personal requests or the
circumstances.
5. How did you motivate people to be involved, to apply themselves, or to take ownership
of their involvement?
Based upon his own experiences as a follower, good and bad, he knows the importance of
listening and communicating. He would spend time talking to other subordinates and team
members. He wanted to know their strengths, but also what their interests were. This allowed
him to make assignments and provide training opportunities that interested that individual. The
same was true for promotions or other job changes. The idea is that people will perform better if
they are satisfied with their work. As for taking ownership, he stresses that individuals would
receive feedback and debriefings on a routine basis. At such time, he would highlight the teams
successes and note areas to improve on.
6. What specific actions did you take?
He would help them to improve, even providing specific instructions on what could be done
next time. He would give examples. He would listen to feedback, complaints, and concerns.
The accountability for individual and team success was a means to encourage ownership. Over
time, each individual would improve their knowledge of and working relationship with each
other. This would help to improve team performance.
7. Give examples of leadership actions that would identify your leadership style or
leadership behaviors?
Jonathan stresses teamwork, mutual respect, and the building of camaraderie. As such, he
sees the importance of team leadership in himself. Because he believes that subordinates should
be heard, he points out the importance of communication and listening skills. He did not
mention transformational leadership by name, but he did stress the importance of building up
each member of a team through training, feedback, and opportunity.
8. Were there specific things you did to encourage and support others, or things you did to
facilitate their job, such as giving training and feedback?
As was mentioned earlier, he provided feedback following on-the-job task force
assignments. He has received and provided feedback in committee meetings on campus.
With his faculty and students, he provides regular feedback on performance, standards,

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 27

accomplishing teaching objectives, and with survey data from students. He has provided
training opportunities, more so in his previous career, based on work requirements and
personal interests. He has tried to be like the model leader that he spoke of, being there and
being able to listen. According to Jonathan, he tries not to control other people but rather is
receptive to their ideas. He encourages faculty members to be creative in their teaching and
learning strategies. He says he is not quick to criticize, so long as standards are met and any
problem is quickly addressed. Trial and error is part of everyones learning process.
My Feedback:
I dont know that I learned anything new about leadership from talking to Jonathan. It is
sometimes interesting to hear how someone else verbalizes their experiences and observations.
As a student of leadership studies, I have for years been familiar with many of the theories,
concepts, and ideal elements of leadership. However, other individuals have to take a little more
time and talk through their experiences. They are looking for the words to describe what is most
important to them. I have seen this with other individuals, not just the man I spoke to here.
If there is an application from this to my own leadership practice, it is to listen to what
others see as being important. If Jonathan or all of those people who have worked with him
could tell me what they like and what they do not, what they want from a leader and what they
do not, then it would be possible to further modify the portrait of the ideal leader.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 28
References

Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: A Conceptualization. Genetic,

Social & General Psychology Monographs, 125(2). Retrieved online, August 12, 2007,
from Academic Search Premier database.
Aronson, E. (2001). Integrating Leadership Styles and Ethical Perspectives. Canadian Journal
of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 244-256.
Autry, J. (2001). The Servant Leader. New York: Prima Publishing.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and
Research. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational
Leadership Behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 20(2). Retrieved, April 5, 2004, from:
Business Source Premier database.
Bennis, W. (2003). On Becoming a Leader. New York: Basic Books.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The Managerial Grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blanchard, K. H. (1985). SLII: A Situational Approach to Managing People. Escondido, CA:
Blanchard Training and Development.
Blanchard, K., Hybels, B., & Hodges, P. (1999). Leadership by the Book: Tools to Transform
Your Workplace. New York: Waterbrook Press.
Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2003). The Servant Leader: Transforming Your Heart, Head,
Hands, & Habits. Nashville: Countryman.
Briggs, K. C., & Myers, I. B. (1998). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 29

Campbell, D. (2002). Campbell Leadership Descriptor: Participant Workbook. Center for

Creative Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, K. E., & Clark, M. B. (1996). Choosing to Lead (2nd ed.). Greensboro, NC: Center for
Creative Leadership.
Dickson, R. (1995). Culturing Personal Leadership. CMA Magazine, 69(1). Retrieved, April
15, 2004, from: Business Source Premier database.
DiSC Profile for Aric Hall. (2007). Inscape Publishing. Available online:
http://www.OnlineDisc.com
Dvir, Taly, Eden, Dov, Avolio, et al. (2002). Impact of Transformational Leadership on
Follower Development and Performance: A Field Experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4). Retrieved, April 1, 2004, from: Business Source Premier database.
Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Rajnandini, P. (1999). Transformational Leadership in the Context
of Organizational Change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 8088. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from: Business Source Premier database.
EQ In-Action Profile: A Profile of Your Relationship. (2004). Emotional Intelligence Profile
conducted for Aric W Hall. Bellevue, WA: Learning In Action Technologies, Inc.
Evans, M. G. (1970). The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on the Path-Goal Relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277-298.
Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Improving Leadership Effectiveness: The Leader
Match Concept (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Goleman, D. (2004). What Makes a Leader? Harvard Business Review, 82(1). Retrieved
online, August 12, 2007, from Business Source Premier database.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 30

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that Gets Results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2). Retrieved
online, August 12, 2007, from Business Source Premier database.
Graeff, C. (1997). Evolution of Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical Review. Leadership
Quarterly, 8(2). Found in: Business Source Premier database.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making Processes within Complex Organizations. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1202-1245). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power &
Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. (1998). The Power of Servant Leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Greenleaf, R. (2003). The Servant Leader: A Transformative Path. New York: Paulist Press.
House, R. J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321-328.
House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. R. (1974). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. Journal of
Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in Theory and Research. Management Science,
28(3), 315-336.
Katz, R. L. (1955, Jan-Feb.). Skills of an Effective Administrator. Harvard Business Review.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Leadership Practices Inventory (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Pfeiffer.
Life Learning Review. Assessment completed in August, 2004. Workwise Coaching &
Consulting.

Personal Leadership Development

Hall, p. 31

Maxwell, J. (2002). Maxwell Leadership Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Mulford, J., & Winston, B. (1996). The Word on Management: A Topical Index of Scriptures
for Managers and Employees (2nd ed.). Franklin, TN: JKO Publishing.
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Russell, R., & Stone, A. (2002). A Review of Servant Leadership Attributes: Developing a
Practical Model. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 23(3/4), 145-157.
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking Leader-Member Exchange: An Organizational Justice
Perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 25-40.
Spears, L. & Lawrence, R. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on Leadership: Servant-Leadership for the
Twenty-First Century. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the
Literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.
Whetstone, J. (2002). Personalism and Moral Leadership: The Servant Leader with a
Transforming Vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4). Retrieved April 16,
2004, from: Business Source Premier database.
Wofford, J. Whittington, J., & Goodwin, V. (2001). Follower Motive Patterns as Situational
Moderators for Transformational Leadership Effectiveness. Journal of Managerial
Issues 13(2). Retrieved April 5, 2004, from: Business Source Premier database.
Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and Leaders: Are they Different? Harvard Business Review
55(3), pp. 67-78. Retrieved online, July 12, 2007, from Business Source Premier
database.