Marc’s MSLD Reflection Blog

Locus of control is a term from the field of psychology which refers to an individual’s belief about the causes of his or her experiences and what he or she attributes to success and failure.  Locus of control is the level that a person believes he can influence the things that happen to him. Individuals with an external locus of control believe that the things that happen to them are the result of some external force; fate, luck, another person, or another force. People with an internal locus of control take responsibility for their actions and believe that the things that happen to them are the result of decision they have made or actions they have taken.  Although neither an internal or external locus of control is inherently “good” or “bad,” it is generally acknowledged that individuals with an external locus of control are more motivated to learn since they feel they are responsible for what happens to them; they take their education into their own hands.  People with an ext

The situational approach to leadership is one of the most widely recognized leadership theories.  “The premise of the theory is that different situations demand different kinds of leadership” (Northouse, 2016, p. 93).  The theory suggests that leaders should adapt their leadership style based on the situation and the abilities and commitment level of the follower.  “The right style is primarily a function of the degree of difficulty of the task and the developmental level of the person doing the task” (Blanchard, 2008, p. 19). The situational leadership theory is composed of four different leadership styles that involve varying levels of directive and supportive behavior.  Blanchard (2008) says that directive behavior is one-way communication in which a follower is told “what to do, where to do it, when to do it, and how to do it” (p. 19).  As opposed to directive behavior, supportive behavior is two-way communication in which a leader listens, supports, provides encouragement, f

Image credit: bigthink.com Throughout a large part of the twentieth century leadership researchers believed that an individual’s personality traits were what gave certain people the ability to become great leaders.  “The trait approach was one of the earliest attempts to systematically study leadership” (Northouse, 2016, p. 20). Many of the theories that researchers developed during this time period were termed “great man” theories because they focused on the inborn qualities and attributes of great leaders (Northouse, 2016).  Many researchers felt that men that would become great leaders were born with the characteristics and attributes that would make them great. Various researches over the years have identified numerous traits they feel are essential to the “great man.” Northouse (2016) inquired: “What has a century of research on the trait approach given us that is useful?  The answer is an extended list of traits that individuals might hope to possess or cultivate if they

It seems that it is nearly impossible to identify a universal definition of the term leadership.   The word has been defined in numerous ways, and has been the subject of debate regarding what principles are encircled by its meaning.  Northouse (2016) defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6).  However, the influence that is exercised is not always linear from leader to follower. In the leadership process leaders both influence, and are influenced by their followers.  Northouse indicated that leaders and followers “must be understood in relation to each other,” and that they “are two sides of the same coin” (p. 7). About three years ago my organization hired a new director of operations.  The man who was appointed to the position was an experienced leader. He had spent his career in the United States Air Force as a helicopter pilot, had earned two master’s degrees, and had advanced to the rank of l