You are on page 1of 4

Core Competency Interview

The individual I interviewed was Nathan Baird, a junior at the University of


Illinois. I have known Nathan since my freshman year of college, and I have always been
impressed by his outstanding leadership qualities. Nathan has been involved in
professional (software development co-leader), educational (homework group member,
Teaching Assistant), athletic (President of Broomball Club) and social (Relay for Life
group leader, Avalanche chair) team based activities on campus. The main team activity
that seemed to be most prevalent to leadership was his role as the president of broomball
club.
As an introduction question to the interview, I asked Nathan, “What is your
definition of leadership?” Nate responded, “Leadership is the ability to understand a
group of people and facilitate cooperation among them to complete a goal by using that
groups’ collective abilities.” Something interesting to add was that Nathan believes there
are two vastly different leaders: Small team leaders and large group leaders. Small team
leaders are more personal in scale (knowing and understanding every member in the
group) while large group leaders are more focused on task behaviors or goal completion
rather than relationships oriented behaviors.
The true definition of team leadership defined in class is a small group of people
with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance
goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. It was
interesting to note Nathan’s definition of leadership. “The ability to understand a group
of people” relates to emotional intelligence in the category of social awareness- where in
order to become a great leader, one must be constantly aware of other’s emotions and
needs. “Facilitation cooperation among them to complete a goal” implies there is a
common purpose to achieve in the team. “Facilitate cooperation” also means leaders are
in place to oversee conflict issues and promote the idea that cooperation results in mutual
accountability. Finally, “using group’s collective abilities,” relates to gestalt
psychology- that a whole (team) is greater than the sum of their parts (individuals). It is
also related to the strengths approach in leadership. Through this phrase, Nathan believes
that team leadership is also shared; each member has their own unique talents that allow
them to step up in a leadership position. It was great to see that Nathan believed that in
order to lead an effective team, there needs to be a small number of individuals involved.
When a large number of individuals are involved, flexibility towards change diminishes
and social loafing occurs.
I followed up with the question, “What roles do you play as President of
broomball club?” Nathan mentioned that he had been broomball captain four
consecutive times and his role within the team had mainly stayed the same. “ I always try
to focus the goal on obtaining a balance between being competitive yet having fun at the
same time. Keeping the atmosphere light is something that is important for leading
intramural sports. In the beginning of the intramural season, I get the team together and
discuss the ground rules. Some of the rules include: Staying positive no matter the
outcome, encouraging others, promoting competitiveness, and good sportsmanship.” If
situations get out of hand, such as if a team member reacts poorly to a call, Nathan
explained that he is quick to confront those members, explaining that certain actions will
not be tolerated.
It is important to mention as President of Broomball, Nathan leads a group of 60-
80 individuals. According to the definition in class, team leadership is with a small
number of individuals. So what Nathan may be leading as President would be a group
rather than a team. When I asked him about how he goes about leading a large group of
people, he stated, “If it is a large group of people, it is really with an iron fist. I lay down
the rules and goals as I see fit. Members can come up to me and I listen to their
proposals and act appropriately if they are reasonable. This leadership is based purely on
the fact that I have authority, knowledge, and power to do so.” In relation to behavior in
teams or groups, Nathan is most likely focused on furthering the accomplishment of goals
and tasks. He is also in charge of creating, clarifying, or modifying those rules and goals
of the group. This response led me to conduct conclusions about positional and personal
power within groups and teams. “I lay down the rules and goals as I see fit” relates to
legitimate power and is based on the position of the organization. “As I see fit” can be
congruent to the phrase, “Because of I said so.” Nathan believes that with a large group,
it is harder for those individuals to adapt quickly, so exhibiting this legitimate power is
sometimes key. Nathan believes that there is little room to be unsure of yourself and
large groups are more likely to be easily to get off task if you aren’t certain. This is why
being confident and acting in authority, but still respecting others’ ideas is extremely
important. I am unsure whether legitimate power is used throughout the entire intramural
season, but according to discussions in class, it is more likely to be effective when the
group or team has been established and has already been through the forming stage. I
believe that Nathan is also exhibiting information power; power based on what/how
much one knows. Information power would be most effective in the forming of the
group or beginning of a season, as many of the members may be new and not understand
the rules or method of the game. When asked about power, Nathan seemed to view his
use of power as assertive; taking initiative and looking out for the best interest of the
team, but also trying his best to learn names of individuals (a way of reducing power
distance) who show up for broomball on a regular basis.
I then asked Nathan, “How would your leadership skills change if you were in
charge of a small team of broomball?” Nathan responded that he would still be respectful
towards all, listen to everyone’s ideas attentively, and identity group goals. “With a
small team, Nathan replied, “ I always try to actively seek feedback from others and
remind myself that I am not more qualified, knowledgeable, or better than anyone else.
In the small team, there is also a whole group dynamic you have to pay attention to. You
have to ensure that each person is represented as they want and you have to try to match
their talents to accomplish the goal in the most efficient way. There is also an effort to get
to know others on a personal level other than their first name, to better understand who
they are and where their motivation comes from.” Nathan also believes that
communication between a large group of people and a small team would also differ.
“Currently, as President of Broomball, I often act authoritatively and if they have a
special request, they have to come to me. If the group were smaller, I would want to
engage in round table discussion to make sure that everyone could get their requests
made somehow, possibly through collaboration or compromise. If broomball club was a
smaller team, I believe there would also be greater trust among the team. A team is more
likely to follow if they trust your decisions. One ground rule that the broomball team is
working on the most is accountability. Accountability often suffers most likely because
this is an intramural sport, a lower priority compared to student’s primary priority,
academic life. Because accountability often suffers, building trust can be quite difficult.”
It was interesting that Nathan was able to realize that without trust or accountability,
teams have a difficult time being successful in their goals. “Although this is an issue, he
continued, “I strongly believe that many trust my judgment and have a deep respect for
my decisions to get things done efficiently. Getting a large group to invest in a common
purpose and vision is sometimes not possible. Fortunately, the vision and goal for the
team is not too complicated. With broomball, group members realize that the objective of
intramurals is to have fun no matter if they win or lose. It’s more of a social time rather
than an intense elite competition. Even though there are some issues within the group, we
are able to accomplish team objectives and follow ground rules.” To follow up these
questions, asked him what success means to him after running a game of broomball.
“Success,” Nathan replied, “For a large group, is being organized and making sure the
right amount of games are completed (goals achieved, tasked accomplished) and there are
no fights or injuries for the night. Its also important that success also includes having fun
and motivating others to compete to the best of their ability.”
The best portion of the interview was when I asked Nathan’s perspective on conflict.
Nathan explained that he believes conflict is positive. “There are some people that try to
avoid it all costs and it drives me crazy.” Nathan believes that conflict is constructive and
it helps find out about other people. “I almost feel guilty because I look forward to
conflict” Nathan continued. “Conflict gives you a real window into the real wants and
desires since they cared enough to bring up an issue.” By talking out the conflict, you
can see what their real goals are and most often, the goals of the two people in conflict
are just misidentified by the other. By engaging in constructive conflict, you build trust
among the team. In a large group, sometimes compromise or accommodation might only
be the best way to manage a conflict.” As Nathan mentioned this, I referred back to my
notes that stated that the cons of both compromise and accommodation were the lack of
sustainability. I mentioned this, but Nathan claimed that questions about sustainability
had never been a problem in the past. Collaboration is virtually impossible when you
have 60 members in a group, so a compromise (where each side gives in a little) and
accommodation (one sides “gives up”) results in a quick end to conflict. I was excited to
listen to Nathan’s perspective as it was right on target to what we have been learning
about conflict in class discussions!
Finally, the interview ended with the question, “So why do you think you are a leader?”
Nathan replied, “I think this is a question that is utmost importance as it contributes to my
leadership attitude. I was a really quiet kid in high school. I just became tired of
activities getting run poorly. Run poorly in two ways: 1. Simple things that could be
much more efficient were not (ie. yelling at people when directions were not followed) 2.
My interests were not met in things I was doing. A lot of teams leaders that I have had
misidentified what the goals were, which was very frustrating. Because of this
experience, I have been motivated to effectively lead teams. I feel that I have never led
just to lead (for resume, self importance, glory).” This statement caught my attention, and
it was great to understand how important it is to not have a hidden agenda. Not having
that agenda allows for a greater sense of trust among the team. “In addition,” Nathan
continued, “I believe I am a good leader because I try to look out of other peoples’ wishes
since in the past I was so tired of mine not being met. I think a good deal of becoming a
great leader is watching from others and learning how NOT to lead!”
In conclusion, it was joy to interview someone who I always looked up to as a leader.
Being able to apply what we learned in class to a real world experience was a great,
refreshing experience.

You might also like