Weekly Reflection
Week 8
12 December 2021
Assalamualaikum and bismillah.
When my coursemates gave a presentation on dyadic relationships, the visual that sprang to me was a young graceful couple dancing the tango in the same room together. The man is in charge, while the lady is following after him. Even though they play diverse roles, they are in sync and work effectively as a team. However, dancers who are out of rhythm tend to step on each other's feet and move uncomfortably. So much so the graceful dancers must move in sync with one another; leaders and followers are also necessary to communicate effectively with one another for the relationship to be successful. When it comes to achieving a goal, the relationship interaction between the leader and the follower is very critical. Northouse (2018) refers to this as the "Leader-Member exchange," in which the "dyadic interaction between leaders and followers" is emphasised. This connection is centred on the leader's contact and mutual support with his or her followers. According to Northouse (2018), a leader and a member would have two sorts of relationships: in-group or out-group.
During my time as a coordinator (Penyelaras) for an event, it was easy for me to "clique" with specific teachers whose personalities matched mine, mainly when we collaborated. These people become a part of my 'in-group'. As a planner and event leader at that time, I worked hard to involve everyone and make them feel like they were a member of my in-group for the time I was in charge of the 'Majlis Persaraan Pengetua' event. It was challenging to do this since I had varying amounts of connections and relationships with each team member. Those teachers who were members of my in-group were the ones who stayed back after school to assist me in finishing off the job that I had set to prepare for the occasion. They took the initiative to accomplish things in a way that was beyond our imagination and fill in the gaps, even though they were not responsible for them.
At moments, some teachers from my in-group took the effort to get packed food for the whole committee members, even though it was already late evening and we were still decorating and arranging the background, stage, and other props. I had several encounters with members of my in-group who took on additional tasks and went above and beyond their work description and expectations. They developed a strong working connection with me, as a consequence of which I can provide further knowledge and concern for them. I discussed thoughts and decisions that we would make throughout the event's preparations. I truly cared about their personal life to ascertain their general well-being.
On the other hand, committee members who were from my 'out-group' would only remain and contribute at certain times of the event. When their assigned duty had been completed, they would go, even though there were many more things need to be completed. The out-groupers were those members who did precisely what was required of them by the responsibility agreement I had with them. I wished to establish a stronger connection with members of my out-group. I occasionally joined them at recess in the canteen, which enabled us to be more casual and get to know one another better. As Northouse (2018) puts it, the second phase is about "improving our career-related social exchanges" to enhance our interactions with one another as we carry out our tasks and obligations. Some members, on the contrary, were determined about avoiding becoming part of the in-group and preferred to stay in the out-group instead. They merely wanted to complete their job at certain hours and just return home without staying back after school. As a result, they continued to be considered an out-group.
As a leader, I'd want to cultivate more connections and develop a rapport with my members that further than just the stranger phase. This avoids conflicts and biases between in-groups and out-groups. The dyadic theory's flaw is its tendency for out-groups to be treated unjustly. As a leader, I think I should devote more time, effort, acknowledgement, and give recognition to members within the in-group and learn not to outcast the out-group.
Besides the Dyadic theory of leadership, I'd like to reflect on followership. The absolute opposite of leadership is that of following. Given the importance of leadership in terms of performance, it is reasonable to assume that followership is also significant. Followership is a simple notion that everybody can understand. It is the capacity to follow directions well, to fall in line behind a project, to work as a member of a team, and to deliver on the responsibilities that are placed on your shoulders. To be a follower does not imply mindlessly following commands or being a 'puppet' in the hands of others. As opposed to this, followership is all about connecting with your leadership competently to benefit both you and your organisation. Furthermore, mastering the art of being a great follower is a prerequisite to being a genuinely great leader in any field.
In the context of school, being a good follower entails relinquishing control of a situation and recognising that your contributions are vital to the success of any particular school project. When a leader is also a good follower, they will recognise when it is appropriate to step aside and allow others to take the lead. This is how a leader develops emotional intelligence. In conclusion, leadership and followership are intertwined, like the two wings of a bird, and form an indivisible system. Failure-safe followership strategies may help you be more successful in your career and better prepare you for leadership positions later on. Insha Allah.
Reference
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: theory and practice (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment