Ranking of Top Leadership Attributes: A Team Perspective
Gill Dixon, Megan Li, Michael Whyte, Terry Kent, and Shazia Khokhar (Team D) analyzed and ranked twenty distinct leadership characteristics based on their individual evaluations. The team subsequently reached a consensus on their top leadership qualities, as shown in the table below.
Attributes of Leadership
|
1 = most important |
Gill |
Megan |
Michael |
Shazia |
Terry |
Group Consensus |
|
Forward-Looking |
11 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
1 |
|
Fair Minded |
4 |
8 |
2 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
|
Broad Minded |
15 |
12 |
8 |
19 |
8 |
3 |
|
Inspiring |
7 |
1 |
13 |
6 |
13 |
4 |
|
Imaginative |
12 |
20 |
9 |
14 |
12 |
5 |
|
Caring |
8 |
11 |
16 |
13 |
5 |
6 |
|
Intelligent |
14 |
17 |
12 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
|
Loyal |
9 |
18 |
7 |
15 |
15 |
8 |
|
Mature |
17 |
9 |
11 |
18 |
16 |
9 |
|
Honest |
2 |
2 |
14 |
1 |
11 |
10 |
|
Courageous |
20 |
13 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
11 |
|
Ambitious |
18 |
7 |
17 |
8 |
18 |
12 |
|
Co-operative |
3 |
15 |
3 |
10 |
4 |
13 |
|
Competent |
10 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
14 |
|
Straightforward |
5 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
15 |
|
Self-Controlled |
16 |
14 |
6 |
9 |
19 |
16 |
|
Supportive |
6 |
4 |
10 |
7 |
1 |
17 |
|
Dependable |
1 |
6 |
1 |
5 |
3 |
18 |
|
Determined |
19 |
19 |
18 |
12 |
14 |
19 |
|
Independent |
13 |
16 |
19 |
17 |
20 |
20 |
Team Reflection:
To discuss our rankings, our team chose to meet over Zoom. We started off by acknowledging that all of us would change at least a few of our rankings based on the readings and that many of us initially ranked these characteristics with more of a managerial perspective rather than a leadership lens. One example of this was “dependable”. All the members of our team ranked this high initially, but the team’s perspective changed after our readings on leadership. The team came to the conclusion that you need a dependable manager for the day-to-day operations, but for the overall leadership of an organization, dependability is less important when compared to traits that have a longer-term bigger picture outlook, such as “forward-looking” or “inspiring”.
Overall, the readings helped provide background for our discussions. Additionally, the team also explored the definitions of several words in the context of leadership, which also contributed to a change in perspective. The team had a productive dialogue regarding the rankings and found that our careers and backgrounds led to some differences in outlook on some of the characteristics; three members of our group currently work in the education field, while the remaining two come from a corporate background. It was interesting to see how these different perspectives affected our rankings for certain characteristics such as “ambition”, which was initially ranked higher from members coming from a corporate background. Regardless of our varied perspectives, we were able to have a productive discussion and come to a consensus.
Hello Shazia, Megan, Michale and Terry,
I appreciate how you illustrated your ranking within your post and followed it with the reflection. In my team experience, we also focused on discussing the meaning and interpretation of the language used in the assignment. How does language impact how people lead and follow? What are your thoughts on how rhetoric influences and communicates change?
Hi Jessica,
Thank you for commenting on our blog post. It was an interesting exercise to discuss the meaning and interpretation of the language used in defining leadership attributes. Our team’s analysis found that the language used to describe leadership attributes can significantly impact how those attributes are perceived and valued. Regarding the impact of rhetoric on change, I believe influential leaders use words to inspire, motivate, and effect change as part of their toolkit for influencing change. For example, if leaders communicate their vision and goals to their audience in a compelling way that resonates with them, they can motivate their audience to take action. However, because words can also be used to manipulate others, leaders need to be aware of how words are used and any potential consequences that may arise as well. In your experience, have you seen rhetoric inference change on both small and large scales, such as impacting a single individual, large community, or country?