Introduction
The situation discussed took place in the final year of school. As part of the final year assignments for the Information Technology subjects students needed to assemble into groups and produce a complex.
My group consisted of six people, three women, and three men. All participants were high-achievers, and only two of them had worked together before.
And one of the guys were both drawn to the leadership position and had different views on how the assignment needed to be performed and used different styles of leadership. This caused shifts of power and conflicts which had to be resolved for the project to be a success.
Symptoms and Analysis
Initially, the second leader and I served as the dual leaders of the group. We began the “forming” process, during which social connections started to build and members began discussing the project and orienting themselves to their possible roles.
During this process, I showed myself as a participative leader. I organized the group to discuss questions and ideas, engaged them, and made sure everyone participated in the conversations and the decision making. This was effective at first but came at odds with the other leader’s autocratic leadership style. During the “storming” process, it became apparent that the autocrat had a defined vision of the project, and was determined to use the group to achieve that views. He deliberately used Neutral, and Dishonest, and Unethical Influence Tactics to dominate the group. He used ingratiation at first, to gain the members’ appreciation, and then began dismantling their ideas through criticism and upward appeal, by only advertising his ideas to the teacher, and mentioning the ideas of other students in an underhanded manner, and then using the teacher’s praise to promote his designs further. The students submitted to this, in part, because the autocrat had a reputation as a Subject Matter Expert.
All this caused severe groupthink, with “effective” members becoming “yes people” and “sheep”. The autocrat used this to reinforce his authority, claiming that he was the only one making a meaningful input. Because of his aggressive tactics, he shifted the power to himself at first. Since the effectiveness of the group had dropped, I realized that leadership needed to change. I got in touch with the four remaining members separately from the autocrat and started rebuilding the relationship with them in accordance with the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory. By using rational persuasion and charm, I persuaded them that the current course of action needed to be changed, and brought to their attention that they were unhappy with it. I apprised the targets and reminded them that their marks and experience were at stake, and we formed a coalition with me in charge to take the power from the autocrat and delegate it to the group. He became resistant and ignored appeals to reason.
To get him to work with everyone, I legitimated my request, by reminding him that his actions went against the requirements set by the teacher, and could cause him to lose points. This worked in combination with peer pressure, and persuaded him to withdraw his resistance, and compliantly join the project on equal terms with everyone. The other members of the group became effective and committed as a result of once again participating in the decision-making. This allowed us to complete the “norming” process and enter the “performing” phase. During this stage, I was inspired by the example and consulted with the group to achieve a consensus. I directed the group in a certain direction, and did it through rationalization and negotiation, and increased efficiency and motivation by inspiring and encouraging people towards the creation of a project “worthy of everybody’s skill”.
Conclusion
Under my leadership, the project was a success, with most of the group enjoying both the development and the result. I was successful as a leader because I gave my followers the opportunity to improve their esteem and to self-actualize while working towards a shared goal. I was unable to influence the autocrat due to his hostile and egocentric character.