Leadership Self-Assessment: Teamwork, Style & Priorities

Teamwork Effectiveness and Accountability

In the first self-assessment, referring to teamwork in my group, I scored a 9, indicating a relatively high level of effective teamwork within the group. The quiz covers what are viewed as the antecedents to successful teamwork — effectiveness of teamwork is measured by results rather than inputs. In general, the result is not surprising. The team in question works well, and there is generally good communication between team members.

Some of the questions that yielded a negative result were a bit surprising, in that the behaviors they discouraged are ones I would consider beneficial. For example, holding teammates accountable to a standard of conduct is something that should encourage more effective teamwork by ensuring that all team members are working hard toward the common goal, with no passengers. Members should feel the pressure to conform to high standards — that is what guarantees those standards will be maintained.

Likewise, the question of decision-making authority is interesting. Somebody needs to make decisions. Consensus cannot always be achieved, and compromise often results in less-than-optimal outcomes. To me, effective teamwork demands that team members occasionally sacrifice their egos and allow the best decision to be made, regardless of how much input each member contributed. Diluting the team's decision for the sake of giving every member a say may be antithetical to harmonious teamwork, but harmony and effectiveness are two different things.

Defining Team Player Identity

Teamwork, to me, is the process by which teams achieve results, and ultimately it is by those results that the team should be measured. I view teamwork as a process, and that process will look different for each decision. In that respect, I see teamwork as contingent. This aligns with my broader support of contingency theory — both teamwork and leadership will function differently according to the situation. Previous self-assessments have actually supported this view, so there is a degree of contradiction between those earlier assessments and this one on teamwork.

The team player assessment produced an interesting set of results. For the first question I scored a 3, and for the second question I scored a 5. The first result indicates that I often prefer to work on my own, or at least in a less collaborative setting. However, I do enjoy contributing to team results. There are roles that fit this paradigm, and to me leadership is one of them. I prefer to have specific tasks I am charged with that contribute to overall team results, but there is a point at which I would rather work independently. Constant collaboration does not appeal to me greatly. That does not mean, however, that I am not a good team player — as indicated by my desire to contribute to team results more than to individual recognition.

I feel that the second question, about credit for the work, is more important in determining how much of a team player someone truly is. Ultimately, if one is oriented toward contributing to a team's results, the nature of the individual work that contributes to those results is entirely irrelevant. Scoring high on the second question is a sign of being able to disassociate one's ego from one's work, and to me this is a critical element of being a team player. It is only when ego becomes a primary motivating factor that one struggles to work well within a team. At the end of the day, teamwork is the combined output of a set of individuals — nothing demands that those individuals work side by side at all times, only that their outputs are combined to form a unified whole.

Transactional vs. Transformational Leadership Style

In the transactional-transformational self-assessment I recorded a score of 33, placing me in the middle between the two leadership styles. The results are somewhat surprising, as were the questions themselves. Many questions — numbers 6, 8, and 10, for example — were philosophically rooted in input measures, whereas my personal views are oriented toward outputs. What I mean is that the merits of change efforts should be judged by their results. Change for change's sake is pointless and should not be encouraged; change should have a specific purpose. I scored high on questions like 5, 7, and 9 because I believe the results of change efforts can largely be anticipated. Part of a leader's role is to think critically about change. As in chess, the more moves ahead one can anticipate, the better the results will be. Supporting change blindly, without considering its outcomes, may be transformational — but transformation in and of itself is not noble. It can be disastrous. Enthusiasm for change must therefore be tempered by reason, facts, and objective analysis.

The fact that such cautious traits are considered transactional raises an interesting question: is a balanced score indicative of balanced leadership capable of functioning in both transformational and transactional situations? Transformational leaders perform transactional behaviors as well — something acknowledged in the assessment itself. This suggests that the balance I displayed may be more desirable for senior leadership positions than a purely transformational style, and certainly more desirable than a purely transactional one.

I also took from this survey that I do not feel I possess significantly strong motivational capability. If I want to function more effectively in transformational situations, I not only need to be able to articulate a clear vision, but I will need to become much better at translating that vision into broad-based motivation across an organization. This is a key element of leadership, and I intend to work on becoming a stronger motivator.