Post-Test and Concept Map

Ester Todd

Department of Leadership Studies, Fort Hays State University

LDRS 801: Theoretical Foundations of Leadership

Dr. Jeni McRay

December 11, 2020

LDRS 801 Todd 2

Post-Test and Concept Map

Part 01: Current Understanding of Leadership

When I started thinking about conceptualizing leadership at the end of this class, all of the theories tangled

up in my head and made it incredibly difficult to clearly identify the key points because we have covered

so much content. For this assignment, the concept map listed below in Figure 1 details the four main

concepts that I think of related to leadership, as well as several subpoints and connecting ideas.

Figure 1

The key concepts identified in this figure are behaviors, traits, followers, and contextual factors.

Many of the sub-concepts from each key concept connect with each other, such as communication being

an both an important behavior and concept of followership. Each of the key concepts are connected to

specific leadership theories discussed in this course, but several of the sub-concepts are original thoughts

that I had established prior to this course and remain in belief of.

Behaviors
LDRS 801 Todd 3

The first key leadership concept that I identified is behavior. I ran a very brief (and unscientific) poll on

some of my friends, asking them about a leader and the first thing that came to their mind. Most of them

chose a behavior word. This makes sense to me because we usually remember people’s actions more than

their words. According to Derue et al. (2011), leader traits and behaviors combined explain at least 31% of

the variance in leadership effectiveness criteria, with leader behaviors tending to be more explanatory than

leader traits. In addition, leader behaviors can be found integrated into a multitude of theories, including

contingency theory, transformational, and transactional theories. I believe leader behavior can have a huge

influence, positively or negatively, on one’s leadership effectiveness.

The key behaviors that stand out for me are authenticity, growth, communication, cross-faction

engagement, and influence. Avolio et al. (2004) note that “authentic leaders are able to enhance the

engagement, motivation, commitment, satisfaction, and involvement required from followers to constantly

improve their work and performance outcomes through the creation of personal identification with the

follower and social identification with the organization.” I linked authenticity to growth because I believe

that as individuals experience self-growth (especially in the area of emotional intelligence), they will

become more authentic to themselves. This idea is backed up by Avolio et al. the more people remain true

to their core values, identities, preferences and emotions, the more authentic they become” (2004).

The third identified behavior is vision. Having the ability to clearly cast a vision is an important theme in

several leadership theories, including transformational, charismatic, and servant leadership. Lowe, Kroeck,

& Sivasubramaniam (1996) note that transformational leadership requires the ability to “clearly outline the

mission,” while charismatic leadership similarly requires the leader to “transmit a sense of mission which

is effectively articulated.”

The fourth identified behavior is communication. Communication could actually be tied into any

or all of the key components of this particular concept map, as I believe it to be a cornerstone for leadership.

In the context of behavior, I think it important to note that communication is more than just speech; it

includes our tone of voice, our body language, our attitudes, etc. The fifth and final behavior in this map is

cross-faction management. When completing the peer reviews for my classmates, I came upon this term
LDRS 801 Todd 4

and found that it broadly encompasses several behaviors that I believe to be important: ability to understand

and empathize with followers, ability to diffuse difficult situations, ability to synthesize the important

information, and the ability to help people from various backgrounds work together. The sixth point

connected to behavior is influence. This sub-concept stands out as a product of behavior. Yukl (2013)

specifically notes the role of behavior in the influence process called personal identification, during which

“the target person imitates the agent’s behaviors or adopts the same attitudes.” Yukl also connects behaviors

and influence through a list of eleven proactive influence tactics, defined as behaviors used by leaders to

intentionally gain acceptance of a request or support for a proposal (2013).

Traits

Moving clockwise through the key concepts of Figure 1, leader traits are next identified as a main

component of leadership. Trait theory became popular in the early 1900s, but fell out of main stream

popularity by the end of the century. Judge et al. (2002) conducted a literary review on trait theory and

found that there is “strong support for the leader trait perspective when traits are organized according to the

five-factor model.” Also known as the Big Five, this model is comprised of neuroticism, extraversion,

openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

The traits in Figure 1 can be effectively traced back to the Big Five model. Adaptability and

creativity can both be identified as openness to experience. Research demonstrates “open individuals are

more likely to emerge as leaders and be effective” (Judge et al. 2002). Empathy is identified by Judge et al.

as a part of agreeableness, which accordingly may be weakly correlated with leadership. I would argue that

empathy is an important trait for leaders because it plays into communication, followership, and decision-

making. Waldman et al. (2011) note that by “drawing upon individual differences in the areas of the brain

associated with…empathy…researchers have suggested that emotionally intelligent behavior has a

neurological basis.” In addition, these authors write that “competency in the area of empathy and emotional

regulation should help leaders develop and communicate their visions and help them to establish and

emotional bond with followers” (2011). The fourth trait on Figure 1 is competency, which falls under
LDRS 801 Todd 5

conscientiousness. Competency is related to job performance (Judge et al., 2002), and I believe followers

appreciate having leader who understand the task at hand.

Contextual Factors

The contextual factors identified in Figure 1 are largely related to aspects of situational leadership and

Fiedler’s contingency model. Fiedler (1971) essentially states that effective leadership is contingent on how

a leader’s style matches a situation. This is similar to situational leadership, which is the idea that what

works well in one arena may not be best suited for another situation. The Figure 1 sub-concepts under

contextual factors include environment, task structure, position of power, and situation. All of the are

external factors which influence leadership. Adaptability is connected as facilitating point: contextual

factors require leader adaptability to ensure effectiveness.

When choosing notable contextual factors, the first thing that comes to mind is environment.

Environments, specifically in the workplace, vary significantly in terms of what is expected, accepted, and

common practice. Some environments encourage open conversation, trust, and risk-taking, while others

breed disagreement, strife and coverups. Leaders are responsible for encouraging positive environments.

House (1996) writes that “supportive leader behavior is behavior directed toward the satisfaction of

subordinates needs and preferences, such as displaying concern for subordinates’ welfare and creating a

friendly and psychologically supportive work environment.” It also important to note that environments in

which instability, perceived threats, negative cultural values, and absence of checks and balances are

common practice, destructive leadership can easily be encouraged (Padilla et al., 2007). Padilla et al. also

notes that “it is hard for destructive leaders to succeed in stable systems with strong institutions and

adequate checks and balances on power and control. Effective institutions, system stability, and proper

checks and balances, along with strong followers, will tend to trump attempts to take over the system”

(2007).

The situation, another sub concept in this map, is closely related to situational leadership. The ideas

behind situational leadership have changed a lot over the years, but Thompson & Vecchio (2009) focus on

leader-subordinate interactions, including how subordinate knowledge and competence levels affects
LDRS 801 Todd 6

leadership styles. I think one way to encourage employee growth is by having flexibility and adapting

behaviors according the situation on hand.

Position of power is another factor which can impact leadership effectiveness. Yukl (2013) sorts

power into two sources: position power and personal power. In terms of the key concepts identified in

Figure 1, I would identify personal power as more closely related to behavior/trat, whereas position power

falls under the contextual factors. Yukl (2013) states that position power includes influence derived from

legitimate authority, control over resources and rewards, control over punishments, control over

information, and control over the physical work environment.

Followers

The fourth and final concept that I identified is followership. Followership is discussed in LMX theory

(specifically in relation to communication), situational leadership, servant leadership, and many other

models and theories. Followership could really be tied into most of the subconcepts in Figure 1; for

example, cross-faction engagement cannot happen without followership and vice versa.

It was not until reaching the discussion on toxic and destructive leadership that I fully understood

the role followers play. Padilla et al. (2007) identify the concept of a toxic triangle, in which the leader,

follower, and environmental factors pull together to create destructive leadership. In this model, followers

who unable or unwilling to resist abusive leaders are called susceptible followers. Susceptible followers

play a key role in supporting destructive leaders, by allowing them to continue the negative behaviors.

Destructive leaders cannot operate in a vacuum (Thouroughgood et al., 2012). On the other hand, when

followers choose to stand up to this type of toxic leadership, they are demonstrating courageous

followership. Thouroughgood et al. (2012) points out that courageous followers question conformity, resist

their leaders’ abuse of power, and stand up for what they believe in.

Part 02: How has Your Understanding of Leadership Changed?

My understanding of leadership has grown exponentially since beginning of the semester. When comparing

and contrasting my concept maps from the pre-test versus the post-test, I noticed that most of the pre-test
LDRS 801 Todd 7

concepts were identified in the post-test, but in a more organized manner. The post-test also contains a

completely new concept, contextual factors, that was not included in my pre-test.

At the beginning of the semester, I identified the key components as being effectivity, growth,

strategy, decision-making, and followers. I now know that effectivity, growth, strategy, and decision-

making are all part of trait and behavior-based leadership theories discussed by Derue et al. (2011) and

Avolio et al. (2004). Many of the attached sub-concepts for these main points was included in my end of

semester understanding, albeit reworded or defined slightly differently. For example, growth was included

in both concept maps, but moved from being a main concept to being a sub-concept under behavior.

Effectivity moved to a sub-concept under traits and was renamed competency. Competency now also

includes experience, knowledge, and cost-analysis (all previously sub-concepts under strategy.)

Competency also overtook the key idea of decision-making.

My understanding has changed to now included commitment, empathy, and goals/vision under the

realm of authentic leadership as explained by Avolio et al. (2004). Previously, these concepts were listed

under effectivity, followers, and strategy. Another major change in my understanding of leadership is the

role of followers. While I did identify followers as a key concept in both my original and end of semester

concept maps, the original concept map clearly states that leadership develops followers. After learning

about situational leadership (Graeff, 1997), path goal theory, House, R. J. (1996), and the role of followers

in stopping destructive leadership (Padilla et al., 2007), I now believe that followers play a much more

significant role in leadership. I would now say that while leaders may develop followers, followers may

also develop leaders. In addition, I specifically noted the importance of courageous followership in my

post-semester concept map, a sub-concept missing in the first map.

Finally, at the semester end I added the concept of contextual factors, which was not identified at

all at the beginning of the semester. Fiedler’s (1971) contingency theory, the role of environment in toxic

triangles pointed out by Padilla et al., (2007), and the impact of power as highlighted by Yukl (2013) all

helped me understand the role of contextual factors in leadership. In general, I believe that my knowledge
LDRS 801 Todd 8

of leadership has shifted from largely being trait and behavior-based to seeing more importance placed on

the role of followership and external factors.

Part 03: Personal Leadership Development Plan

Strengths

For the purpose of this assignment, I am choosing areas identified in the concept map that I created. I believe

that my top strengths are authenticity, cross-faction engagement, and personal growth. Authenticity is

something that I have invested a lot of time into over the past four years. It is extremely important to me in

both personal and professional realms. Being self-aware, developing my emotional intelligence,

understanding what I believe in, taking responsibility for my actions—those are all things that I strive for

and think that I generally do well with.

Cross-faction engagement is also something that I continually work on. I believe it is extremely

important to develop trust with people from different backgrounds and experiences, and engage partners

across the table who might not normally be included in the conversation. I have always been the natural

mediator or “diplomat” as my family calls me. It is easy for me to see all sides of a situation, which is

helpful in mediating difficult conversations.

I also identified personal growth as a strength, because I am constantly learning new things. I make

an effort to read journals, books, and web material that will increase my personal growth in areas like

emotional intelligence, psychology and sociology, leadership, and global politics. After completing

undergraduate school it became more and more evident to me that many people hard stop their education

the minute they receive their diploma. I believe leaders must continue to learn and grow every day.

Areas for Growth

The primary areas for improvement that I have identified for myself are courageous followership, vision,

and adaptability. For courageous followership, I specifically struggle with speaking up when I do not

understand something, or more often-when I feel like my question or comment will make me sound

unintelligent. In the latter part of this year, I have found myself often very tired and unwilling to speak up
LDRS 801 Todd 9

in situations when something is not going well. It seems pointless and redundant. I would really like to

willingly engage in difficult conversations more often, especially with people who are in high authority

levels than me.

Vision can be difficult more me as well when I am really tired. It can be easier to focus on the daily

tasks and minute details, rather than being optimistic and helping others see the long-term goals. I would

really like to be the person who helps others see past the trees into the forest. That focus and vision is an

essential part of authentic leadership.

Finally, adaptability has been both a blessing and curse for me. I used to be very adaptable. Since

becoming an adult and taking care of myself in college, I became much more concerned with the what-if’s

and controlling everything possible to mitigate risks. Effective leaders, especially now, really need to be

adaptable to constantly changing situations. Although I would say that I have become much more flexible

this year, I still find myself becoming very anxious and pushing back when others in the room show visible

signs of discomfort with change. For some reason, even if I feel calm inside and know how to handle a last-

minute change, if my supervisor freaks out or my colleague is really stressed—then I internalize those

emotions.

Goals

Based on my above-identified strengths and areas for growth and my own professional interests, I have

identified the following goals:

1. Read one (non-school or work-related) book on the topic of leadership, personal growth,

psychology, or a related field every quarter.

2. Build stronger resilience to difficult situations by setting ascending micro-goals for personal

growth each month.

3. Grow my comfort zone and network by attending at least three meetings a year for

departments/topics which I would not normally be invited.

LDRS 801 Todd 10

References

Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking
the mask: a look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–823.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003

Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait And Behavioral
Theories Of Leadership: An Integration And Meta-Analytic Test Of Their Relative
Validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 7–52. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-
6570.2010.01201.x

Fielder, F. (1971). Evaluation and Extension of the Contingency Model of Leadership

Effectiveness. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 128–148.

Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership theory: A critical review. The

Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(97)90014-x

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(96)90024-7

Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., Bono, J. E., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: a
qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.
https://doi-org.ezproxy.fhsu.edu/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the mlq literature.
The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(96)90027-2

Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–
194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001

Thompson, G., & Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions.
The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.014

Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A
taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(5), 897–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.05.007

Waldman, D., Balthazard, P., & Peterson, S. (2011). Social Cognitive Neuroscience and
Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1092–1106.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.005

Yukl, G. A. (2013). Chapter 8: Power and Influene. In Leadership in Organizations (pp. 85–
120). essay, Pearson.