- Post a new discussion related to the topics covered in this module. Your post needs to provide specific lessons learned with examples from this module helping you enhance your leadership capacity at work.
- After posting your discussion, review posts provided by other students in the class and reply to at least one of them.
This module showed us how as a leader and to be an effective communicator we need to show that we have the three main components of credibility which are, expertise, dynamism, and trust. As a good leader we know that it is imperative that portray a positive image and provide a level of trust. If we succeed in these areas it will be a key component in being a positive influence to many or to one. I believe it is important to be a positive role model. But in order to do that we need to effective in how we communicate to our team. It is also important to be clear within our communication so that there is no doubt and people on your team believe in you and your mission of the department. Trust a five letter word that emphasizes many things that define our world around us. To be credible in what we do everyday we need to believe in ourselves and trust ourselves to succeed. Balancing life from personal pathways to our profession creates many ways we need to be a positive communicator that is willing to listen and be able to provide positive feedback as well as the negative. If your team beleives in you then they will trust you and will follow you to the end.
It was interesting to learn different techniques on how to have members engage in open conversations during staff discussions. Asking the members to independently deliberate and bring ideas to the table to start open discussions. I also like the idea of them providing ideas anonymously so we can openly discuss them without anyone feeling like their ideas isn’t the best idea. I really liked the idea of having a devil’s advocate, this allows another member to critically think of all the shortcoming that could occur. Plus, it doesn’t have the supervisor always being the one to shed negative light on the ideas. Having the ability to inspire others through daily activities and wanting them to improve the division (O’Leary, 2014). I have noticed in the past when I ask members to provide ideas or feedback most of them sit quietly. When asked to provide written feedback, most of them don’t follow through. In the future, I plan on incorporating some of these techniques.
O’Leary, J. (2014). The importance of good conversations and how to have it. TED Talk. 1.12, Week # 4. National Command and
Staff College. Retrieved from blob:https://embed.ted.com/99da59e3-a6c0-45ad-9d10-70e53de1c052
Being able to trust your leader/supervisor will allow your subordinates to openly talk with you about things in the work place and or outside of work. With my supervisor I know that I can go to her with any personal issues that I am going through without judgement. With her experience she can respond with all of the knowledge she has gained in the years put in. Supervisors should be able to guide you in all aspects and know they are being truthful to their subordinates.
It is very important to be able to openly communicate with your supervisor so they are aware of the personal and professional struggles their members are encountering. As I supervisor, one of my biggest struggles is the fact that I don’t find out some things that our occurring until my members do, so they feel as though I am hiding things from them or that I am not being honest when I tell them I don’t know.
Communication as a leader is extremely important, as mentioned in this module. It goes into detail that dynamism, trust, and expertise are the main factors. Trust, I would say is the most important element when communicating downward or upward to administration. Granted, knowing what you are talking about is as important as showing your enthusiasm about what is being said. I feel that conveying trust and it being reciprocated by your subordinates in the benefit that it will only enhance what you say and how you say it. No one wants to listen to someone that is always exaggerating or being untruthful. I like knowing that my guys believe what I say based on the fact I am not dishonest to them and would never intentionally lead the astray.
I agree that subordinates are not being lead astray is great. I like knowing that my supervisor will never let me fail and is always being honest with me no matter what. Expertise plays a huge part in communication. I would feel more comfortable going to a person with 15+ years of experience rather than someone with 5 years.
The John O’Leary TED Talk associated with this module highlighted three reasons why people don’t fully share what they know in a group setting. They included:
– The idea that dissent = disloyalty
– The idea that criticism of an idea = criticism of an individual
– The idea that to disagree with consensus = not being a team player
I have seen each of these reactions or accusations absolutely crush collaboration and input, and destroy morale. We have to move beyond the idea that respectful dissent, criticism, or disagreement is always a negative.
I agree that in some most cases criticism will be constructive when applied or communicated appropriately in a group setting. On the other spectrum, if the delivery or clarity of the message being conveyed is done incorrectly, this will possibly cause a catastrophic error in terms of improving or growing as a team. When it becomes a habit of miscommunication due to the break, it can cause animosity and put a wedge between people. The straying from the directions can be interpretted as being disloyal or disobedient, therefore continuing in a negative spiral.
Eric I have to agree that we have to get away from the thought that individuals with different viewpoint are being disloyal, critical of the other individual or not a team player. I believe that most of the time these individuals are absolutely team players and are thinking outside of the box and if allowed the opportunity could provide good insight of why the current plan or operations aren’t working appropriately.
I believe one of the issues is that individuals in upper management believe they know what is best for the division and what the members really need. However, sometimes they are out of touch and don’t remember what it use to be like to be on the frontlines or things have changed so much that those practices don’t even work anymore. The other issue is the way the individual delivers the message, if they are coming across as hostile or critical of the current operations then it isn’t going to be well received.
Thank you for your post. But I kind of want to debate the idea of what you proposed of how dissent = disloyalty/criticism of an idea = criticism of an individual
and the idea of disagree with consensus = not being a team player. I understand how this can deplete morale or as you said crush the person but I also can see how a good leader and communicator can use these deficiency to create and build a person. If we as communicators can show the differences and provide the bigger picture by demonstration or by verbalizing then the misunderstanding can be changed so the expectations can be highlighted and understood for positive future. Good leaders can turn things around but obviously the individual will need to want to make the change a trust in you to help them through it.
I am a Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPAC) evaluator and am testing the system.