Leadership

Robin Beavers

UMUC

Introduction

    Leadership in distance education (DE) is perhaps one of the most dynamic, challenging and unpredictable organizations to manage. DE leadership positions are particularly challenging because, "Creating and conveying technological visions powerful enough to displace traditional educational models is one of the most challenging aspects of leadership (Marcus, 2004). The first half of this paper will discuss the five qualities and skills that I feel are critical for being a successful DE leader in the volatile digital age. In my opinion, intelligence, the ability to communicate effectively, the humility to delegate tasks to others, integrity, and the ability to adapt are a powerful combination for a successful DE leader. The second half of this paper will discuss three crucial issues that are the biggest challenges for DE leaders today, delivering quality education, understanding the needs of the distance student, and providing training for online faculty and staff in this growing global audience.

Intelligence

     Intelligence sets the table for all other attributes and skills, especially in an educational and technical organization; intellect is the gateway to effective and successful leadership. The DE leader must be intelligent in order to handle the multifaceted world of online education. Intelligence embodies many attributes in and of itself but the DE leader must have the intellectual capacity and leadership skills to communicate with internal and external stakeholders. Additionally DE leaders must be aware of trends and evolving technologies, have a solid foundation in traditional and emerging pedagogies, understand course design, identify the needs and characteristics of both adult and traditional students, and fit all the pieces together to assure a quality, relevant, user-friendly product. I think that in order to have people follow you, you must be considered intelligent enough to lead. Intelligence, some form of intelligence is displayed in all of the other attributes in this paper. If a leader recognizes the need for something and is able to then apply the solution appropriately then intellect is clearly present. A DE leader must be sharp enough to know that communication, delegation, adaptability, vision and the mentoring and empowering of subordinates all create a DE organization that has the capacity to have a winning DE organization.

Communication

    Along with intelligence, the most important attribute in successful DE leadership is having good communication skills. “Effective communication makes for a high quality leader because it enables one to express ideas successfully” (Rolle, 2002). Successful communication skills enable leaders to set the tone for the organization, its purpose and mission, its goals, and objectives and especially its vision for the future. Kotter (1996) asserts in distance education, conveying the mission and vision is an integral part of building a loyal followership among the various stakeholders that make up distance education. Communication along with intelligence is the launch pad for all other attributes, without effective communication skills, all other attributes are obscured.

     DE requires a leader who displays a combination of transformational, visionary, and charismatic leadership traits, all of which require well-honed communication skills.  DE leaders have to possess the communication skills to,

·         Develop a vision, together with the employees. The effective DE leader must communicate the organization’s vision to all of the stakeholders and have the charisma to inspire the followership.

·         Convey a strategy. An effective communicator must be able to clearly define and express how the organization’s vision is to be achieved.

·         Implement the vision. Kotter states that vision requires passion and an effective leader must communicate the passion behind the vision.

·         “Express confidence, decisiveness and optimism about the vision and its implementation.’. A DE leader can only do these things through clear and effective communication.

Integrity

      Merriam Webster defines integrity as “the quality of being honest and fair.” It is difficult for a leader to succeed if his followers do not perceive him or her to be honest, forthright, and fair. Followers must believe in the person who is being followed in both good times and bad. (Antonakis,Fenley,& Liechti, ,2012) assert that even during negative times if a leader is identified as being a moral and honest person, followers will still support and stand behind them. The immediacy of technology in this age of transparency means that DE leaders must be aware that reputations can easily be affected (Lawless, 2011). Internal email leaks, Twitter, and other social media can either be a benefit or wreck havoc on the integrity of an organization. It is best for DE leader to be upfront, and honest with all stakeholders, both internal and external.

Adaptability

     A DE leader’s decision-making is contingent upon internal, external political, technical and economic factors, thus it is leadership built on contingency. The ability to adapt is not a suggested trait to succeed it is a necessary one. According to Kotter (1996), “Change dominates our world and education is a major vehicle for initiating, managing, and sustaining or stabilizing our environments affected by change. It is through educational value that we develop the understanding and knowledge to effectively craft strategies for leading change.”  Our Group 3 interview was Alex Autry, the current president of the Federal Government Distance Learning Association (FGDLA), Autry simply stated; “nobody likes change, it disrupts the flow and takes people off course, nobody likes change.” In DE, there is constant change and the DE leader must be flexible, willing, and capable of doing so when required.

Delegation

    Delegation is defined, as “one who has been empowered by one’s superior to take responsibility for certain activities, which were originally reserved for the superior.” (Zhang, Tremaine, Egan, Milewski, O’Sullivan & Fjermestad, 2010). Delegation is one of the most important and essential management skills a distance leader can exhibit. Effective delegation serves two purposes; it lessens the chance of micromanaging and it empowers subordinates.

Micromanagement

     The ability to recognize and accept that as a leader one does not possess the skill set or time to manage everything that goes on within an organization is an asset. I speak from personal experience when I say; there is nothing more defeating, disruptive, disturbing, and enraging than having a superior micromanage every assigned task. The dangers of micromanaging are that once your work or ideas are constantly undervalued, it is easy for an organization to fall into groupthink, simply to avoid wasting your energy and time because they are perceived to lack significance. That means that solutions and innovation are effectively squelched and so to is the ability for your organization to reach its goals and potential. The DE leader cannot afford to risk groupthink in such a trend and technology driven environment, it is a waste of time, and money and groupthink will hamper acceptable and desired outcomes.

Empowering followership

     Tomorrow’s leaders are forged by the opportunity to shine as followers. I believe that delegation is directly related to followership and that delegation is a form of professional advocacy; it helps to build, create and develop an educated followership and groom them as leaders for the future. Our group interviewed Alex Autry, asserted throughout the interview the importance of giving responsibility to subordinates. Autry believed that he was incredibly important to choose subordinates that may be underperforming to give them opportunity to gain confidence and experience. Autry offered that it is a way to help followers learn. He said that he always lets them know he is there to help and guide to stay on task, but he offered that he allowed them to figure out how to do things their own way.

Part II

      Marcus (2006) asserts that DE leadership shares and involves some of the same traits common to leaders in other organizations, but also “requires special abilities and insights into technology's impact,” this is particularly true for 21st century DE leaders. The explosion in the growth of DE, its global nature and the ever-present emerging beast that can be technology will require DE leaders to have vision as well. Compora (2003) suggests distance institutions do both internal and external assessment to determine the following,

·         Does the institution has the crucial resources for a distance program (faculty, approved academic courses, financial resources).

·         What kind of students may be interested in a distance education program?

·         What types of courses that would be taken by the students?

·         If students are interested in matriculating into a course of study leading to a degree. 

Quality of education

     The quality of distance education has always been called into question in comparison to traditional face-to-face education.  This is particularly true in the light of the proliferation of for profit schools. The government and other education sectors have queried whether these for-profit institutions place revenue over favorable student outcomes. The problem is that these unscrupulous practices paint the entire DE learning movement.  In 2010 the Department of Education issued regulation for distance learning programs, which includes state authorization to deliver distance-education programs out of state and confirmation of non-degree programs as leading to paid employment (Hunter & Ohio State, 2011). If these institutions do not comply federal financial aid will be off limits. Some DE leaders fear state control will impede student choice and even curriculum. This action by the government is a warning for DE leaders to make a stand and assure stakeholders that quality education is their main concern.

Qualified staff

     The growth in distance education requires quality faculty and staff who are trained to instruct distance learners.  According to Scull, Kendrick, Shearer, & Offerman, (2011), the majority of distance-education administrators use part-time and non-tenured faculty. DE leaders must understand the faculty culture to engage them in distance learning. According to Bower (2001) it is incumbent upon leadership to provide the appropriate support to staff that have to make the transition to online instruction. Portugal(2006) asserts that DE leaders must support staff in various ways including offering financial incentives and  technical training. As faculty and staff workloads increase so too should the compensation. Online instruction requires more time and preparation than face-to-face teaching. It also requires faculty knowledge of online pedagogy, a student centered, self directed environment a complete shift from lecture styled teaching. Support in the form of technical training is imperative; it cannot be assumed that faculty is proficient at using technology, especially given the myriad of multimedia available for online teaching. Training in the form of face-to-face workshops, with instructional designers, faculty already teaching online or online tutorials may employed (Lackey, 2011).

Distance student trends

     Students are “focused and more demanding that there be a return on their investment in time and money” (Lawless, 2011).  If you want to sell product you have to understand your consumers. In distance education, those consumers are students, on a global scale. DE leaders must know their market and take notice that in the 21^st century, there is a global quest for training, education skills and certification to improve skills and marketability in this increasing global economy (McFarlane, 2011). As older students go back to school distance programs must consider incorporating more business like “just in time” and training programs (Portugal, 2006). It is not the death knell for four-year colleges or degrees, but distance leaders must reflect on the shift in the student demographic and add quality options to traditional degree programs as necessary.

Conclusion

     Beaudoin declares that DE leaders must no longer sit on the sidelines, but feel empowered to become part of mainstream education (Portugal, 2006). He implies that DE leaders in an effort to gain respect and be recognized as an equal option to traditional education must follow the academic guidelines and practices of traditional education, adhering to standards that produce favorable outcomes for students.

     What I have learned about leadership in DE is that it takes an incredibly smart, gifted, driven, adaptable, flexible, and passionate leader to successfully tackle a DE organization. The need to be technical and on trend in a fast growing industry requires a leader who realizes that it has to be a collaborative team effort. I also learned that there is no one right or wrong way to lead. A great deal has to do with being able to understand and connect with people inside and outside of the organization. A DE leader has to be aware of student needs, technological boundaries, and emerging pedagogies. A DE leader must be fiscally responsible in face of trying to stay relevant and a DE leader must reconcile education with technology.

References

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2012). Learning charisma. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 127-130.

Beaudoin, M. (2005).Reflections on research faculty and leadership in distance education. Oldenburg: Bibloteks und Informationssystem der Carl von Ossietzky University.

Bower, B. (2001, Summer). Distance Education: Facing the faculty challenge. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html

Compora, D. (2003, Summer). Current trends in distance education: An administrative model. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer62/compora62.html

Hunter, M., & Ohio State University. (2011, March 22). Federal Regulations Require State authorization for distance education programs. Retrieved from https://ocio.osu.edu/blog/community/2011/03/22/federal-regulations-require-state-authorization-for-distance-education-programs/

Kotter, J.(1996) Leading Change.

Lackey, K. (2011, Winter). Faculty Development: An analysis of current and effective training strategies for preparing faculty to teach online. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter144/lackey144.html

Lawless, J. (2011, September 8). Reputation, integrity, and transparency in the digital age. Retrieved from https://www.tacoma.uw.edu/node/37115

Marcus, S. (2004, Spring). Leadership in distance education: Is it a unique type of leadership - A Lit Review. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring71/marcus71.html

McFarlane, D. A. (2011, Spring). Emerging leadership roles in distance education: Current State of Affairs and Forecasting Future Trends. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall93/portugal93.htm

Portugal, L. (2006, Fall). Emerging leadership roles in distance education: current state of affairs and forecasting future trends. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall93/portugal93.htm

Rolle, J. R. (2002). The role of communication in effective leadership.

Zhang, S., Tremaine, M., Egan, R., Milewski, A., O’Sullivan, P., & Fjermestad, J. (2010). Occurrence and effects of leader delegation in virtual software teams. IGI Global.

Individual Analysis of Alex Autry Interview

Introduction

     Kotter asserts that in order to make a good team you must find the right people (Kotter, 2012). That was not an option for Group Three which began as a group of five students that had never met each other before being assembled as part of a small group for a required class assignment in DEPM 604, Leadership in Distance Education and E-learning, a mandatory course for all MDE students. One may assume that members began with the predictable unspoken feelings that all obligatory collaborative projects evoke the feelings of trust and mistrust.  The trepidation brought on by lack of familiarity, the possibility of clashing personalities, time constraints, and not knowing one another’s work ethic, conduct or motivation (Lewicki, McAllister& Bies, 1998).  In the end, Group Three participants created a very consistent and unified group that worked well together by establishing group norms for communication, shared leadership and task defining roles.

Group diversity

     Diversity is always a consideration in a group (Ayoko, & Hartel, 2006).); however, culture, race nor gender played a significant role in our group dynamic. Initially our group was composed of three men and two women, after Teresa dropped out of the group one woman remained.  The racial composition was three European Americans and one African American. There were three members residing in the Eastern Time Zone representing Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts and one living in the Central Time Zone in Illinois. Also, our group consisted of two high school teachers, one technical writer and one librarian, all of whom were in different stages of completing their MDE. Our common goal as a group, which was to complete the task, overshadowed and prevailed over any of our differences (Kotter, 2012).

Group norms

     Our first group activity was to create a joint document listing expected group behaviors, those behaviors that we felt would help us to work effectively as a virtual team.  Given the limited time of our group, not all of the behaviors listed were enacted.  One crucial behavior was giving one another respect and positive feedback. Looking over the document the most important behaviors fell into two categories, communication, and roles.

Communication

     As with all virtual groups, we did create and sustain trust using communication technology (Malhorta, Majchrzak & Rosen, 2007). We maintained regular contact and built cohesiveness through our choice of communication, which meant selecting a method that every group member would be able to easily access.  We tried various modes of communication via the Internet.  We tried Google Docs but we encountered some issues with sharing resources with everyone. We tried the group area in LEO, but not everyone could log-on throughout the day thus, email eventually became our primary means of communicating within our group. Those working from both computer and cell phone could access email without much hindrance.

     Our messages were quick short and to the point, making email a perfect vehicle for multiple updates within any given day.  We used email to make suggestions, determine tasks and roles and to clarify and clear up any concerns. We did however post our important email updates in the LEO group area as an alternative way to keep everyone in the loop.

     Communication via email within the group increased during times of uncertainty and stress. For example, after Alex Autry agreed to be interviewed it took quite a while for him to respond and set up an interview time. Although there was a concern, maintaining constant contact did not allow panic we kept abreast of the potential issues and the consideration that we may have to choose another candidate to interview.     

Roles

     Our group of five was quickly whittled down to four, which was a negligible occurrence because our roles had not been defined thus losing a member did not affect group cohesion or planning. One group member suggested that we choose a distance educator from the government sector. After that suggestion, Robin researched and presented some options to the group. Once we chose a leader, we decided what roles were required to get our assigned tasks completed.  Kris emerged as the member who would perform the interview thus his role was to contact Alex Autry to set up the interview. At some point Alex Autry was unresponsive to Kris’s emails after having agreed to the interview.  The role of contact shifted when Mike stepped up and secured Alex’s phone number and worked along with Kris to set up an interview.  The interview was in the afternoon, which meant Daryl, and Robin would not be available due to scheduling conflicts, however the rest of the group knew about this. Once the interview had been done, Robin played the role of transcriber and was assigned to post it to the Group 3 forum. All four of us worked to complete the paper, Kris and Mike compiled contributions and we all went about the task of editing, asking one another for input, offering suggestions, corrections, checking, and double-checking before Robin was asked to submit the final paper.

Leadership

   At various points in the process, we each stepped up in the role of organizer and cheerleader, leader and follower. Daryl was the first to establish contact and take the lead by introducing himself to the group via email. Daryl established himself as someone who had taken the time to familiarize himself with his new group members. Daryl approached the group by saying that he read some of our posts in class and the thought that we would make an interesting group. Additionally, he began to gain trust by expressing up front what we were probably all thinking, saying that he had been a part of virtual groups before with mixed results. Daryl then suggested that we all take time to read and formulate an approach to our assignment and perhaps make time to set up a collaborative meeting. The rest of the group followed Darryl’s lead. As time went on we all became leaders and followers depending on individual schedules, ideas and tasks. Decision making was by committee.  There were no overblown egos, snakes or reluctant members in our group (Kotter, 2012).

Conclusion

     We worked well as a team; we eased into a shared leadership depending on what needed to be done. Thus, there were times when we were all followers. There was no lack of positive encouragement and positive feedback.  In the end email was our choice of communication and that worked well for all of us. At no point did ego or lack of participation jeopardize our assigned tasks. There was a true reciprocity of respect and commitment to complete our assigned task successfully.

References

Ayoko, & Hartel. (2006). Cultural diversity and leadership: a conceptual model of leader intervention in conflict events in culturally heterogeneous groups. Cross Cultural Management, 13(4), 345-360.

Kotter, J. (2012).Leading change, with a new preface. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press

Lewicki, M. and Bies. (1998). Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy of management Review. 23 (3), 438-460.

Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21 (1), 60-70.

Group 3 Interview with Alex Autry

Robin Beavers, Mike Donoghue, Daryl Flinn, Kris Hansen

University of Maryland, University College

It was decided in early discussions that the group would choose a distance education leader within the government sector. Our choice was Alex Autry, president of the Federal Government Distance Learning Association (FGDLA), as well as Assistant Director and Chief of Instructional Quality for the Air Technology Network Program Management Office (ATN PMO), which is part of Air University, Air Education and Training Command. The ATN PMO delivers education for military personnel and government employees within the Department of Defense (FGDLA).

Management style

Alex Autry’s management style, as measured on the Tannenbaum & Schmidt Continuum (1958), puts him solidly on the subordinate centered side of the continuum. He is still in charge of the curriculum, but asks the students to answer a six question survey. This provides insight into what they are seeking and their expectations, which he then uses to determine whether learning objectives have been met, and whether the delivery media is appropriate. By asking for their input, the effectiveness of his program is enhanced.

Autry goes further when he says: “Make sure your students learn what you want them to learn” (Autry, 2014). The people he leads and educates are military, many of whom have made it their career, so there is a level of professionalism, pride in accomplishment, and discipline that is more pronounced than in the civilian workforce. This should make buy-in easier, as subordinates are not likely to challenge change directly. Though the opening statement of this paragraph comes off as authoritarian, the decisions on what students need to learn was determined through a collaborative process involving those he manages as well as the students.

For strategic planning, Autry asks for input from subordinates. He does not always implement their requests, nor should he. Leadership is not management by consensus or avoiding conflict even if that results in short-term gains. Long-term gains and program improvement are more likely to occur if there is a balance between boss-centered and subordinate-centered leadership, with the manager, who has the final responsibility for the success or failure of the project in his hands.

Alex Autry has several charismatic leadership attributes that became evident right from the onset of the group’s interview. In the discussion, he spoke about the emerging use of satellite technologies to transfer data to run synchronous classes within his organization as well as the need to keep up with changing technologies so as to be ready to adapt to them. Autry mentioned how highly motivated his colleagues are and how they take great pride in getting the job done well. Autry’s confidence and optimism is strong and he projects himself as someone that believes in his cause, believes in those that he works with, and believes that they can accomplish the duties given to them. Rather than micromanaging his team members, Autry communicated that he oversees the coordinated efforts between them and lets these experts do their jobs. He has respect for professionalism and in turn seems to have earned the respect of his colleagues. Because of these attributes, task and maintenance functions are effectively infused throughout the organization.

Task functions

Task functions are methods of utilizing behaviors in order for groups to move forward towards goal achievement. Maintenance functions are strategies that helps build productive working relationships amongst group members. Throughout the interview with Alex Autry, there were several examples of how he manages group task and maintenance functions:

Information or opinion seeking: Autry talked about getting the viewpoints from his followership on ideas for aligning the mission statement and for strategic planning. This inquiry initiates collaborative teamwork that helps the organization make progress towards goals. Also, he discussed the importance of feedback surveys that students take during and/or after each course. This data helps his team make improvements to the quality of the training sessions.

Information or opinion giving: Autry spoke about his routine meetings with different teams. He shares the needs and goals of the program with his followership and reports on status and needs issues with his superiors. He provides relevant information about his group’s concerns and instructions on implementing plans.

Clarifying or elaborating: Autry elaborated extensively about how leadership works best within his organization. He reiterated about being honest, truthful, and treating others the way he likes to be treated. He was effective in communicating this message because of the repetition.

Maintenance functions

Encouraging: Autry’s approach is very encouraging. He is extremely easy to speak with. His philosophy of getting his followership to work productively is accomplished by using the concept of empowerment. He promotes self-discipline and pride as motivation techniques for members of his group.

Harmonizing: Autry spoke about change management as a difficult area because of the generalization that people do not like change. He said it works best once all stakeholders are on board.

Gate-keeping: Autry strives to keep communication channels open between all involved parties.

Setting standards: Autry expects his system to work. This includes the technologies involved and the people developing and overseeing them. He directs test runs and makes necessary adjustments to ensure quality deployment of the system.

Empowerment and trust

In the discussions regarding his staff, Autry spoke highly of their abilities. While Autry manages the work and leads the unit, his description of the group presented a picture of personnel that share ownership of the tasks necessary to create, maintain, and deliver courses, while also being supportive of each other’s needs (described by Autry as a factor of pride). His staff members are participatory, perhaps even acting more like activists in that they appear to be well-invested in their mutual success, the material, and his leadership (Kellerman, 2009). Even in his closing statements in the interview, Autry recognized that a leader needs to acknowledge those people who helped him or her reach their leadership position, echoing the statement that in order to be a leader, one needs followers (Kellerman, 2009).

While not formerly portraying himself as an empowering leader, Autry described his unit as one that is mostly self-governing, only requiring him to step in periodically to make sure that work is being done as specified and that there are no difficulties within the operation. In the questions posed to him during the interview, his leadership type was typified by Sims, Samer, and Seokhwa as one that assists in “influencing others by developing and empowering follower self-leadership capabilities” (Sims, Samer, & Seokhwa, 2009, p.150). In addition, workers in the unit demonstrate knowledge sufficient to receive recognition by Autry and other leaders about the future direction the unit may need to follow.

Through the Influence Power Continuum (IPC) as described by Frank Heller, we can conclude that Autry utilizes a variation on the described decision making processes (Heller, 1973, p.188). Heller’s table reviews a number of delegation processes, all predisposed to deliberate managerial action. Indirectly though, Autry practices both joint decision-making with subordinate and delegation of decision to subordinate techniques, but without consciously informing his staff that he is enabling those practices. It was communicated that they are military professionals with similar backgrounds in discipline, suggesting that some leadership qualities are not communicated by Autry so much as inherited from previous experience.

Having this degree of faith in the ability of subordinates to make decisions on their own suggests an environment of trust. For Autry and his staff there is both the special shared experience of a military background that inspires confidence as well as personal conduct that fosters positive expectations (Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998). Autry also generates workforce trust by arranging overt demonstrations of stakeholder support. The conditions he creates inspire motivation, which leads to building trust, and then promotes delegation.

Workforce culture

The choice of a government entity certainly plays into the class discussions of leadership in a multicultural environment. In addition to his daily duties, Alex Autry presides over the FGDLA, a group that supports clients and instructs students from various government agencies (IRS, Army, Department of Justice, Air Force, etc.) as well as non-government sectors, including academic and corporate organizations. As president, Autry interacts with people of various cultures, races, beliefs, positions, motivations, and genders.

The interview with Autry brought to light many of the theories and practices regarding leadership discussed in the class. Through the questions and answers presented, it was determined that Autry’s leadership skills were learned and honed through his 27 year career in the United States Air Force, skills that Autry regularly practices and implements to great effect in his current position.

Autry comes across as having many of the qualities ascribed to those who are transformational leaders; transformational leadership may be defined as “a manner of leading whereby the needs of followers are placed as priority among leaders in the workplace” (Washington, 2014, p.3). Burns declares that a transforming leadership happens when “one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise each other’s performance” (Burns, 2010, p.67).

Several times during the interview, Autry asserted that motivating, empowering, and guiding those in subordinate positions is a crucial part of success for him as a leader and for the organization. He stated that when it comes to leading, he prefers to think of leadership as “look what I am a part of, not look what I built” (Autry, 2014).

Autry stated that he is fortunate that the majority of those he works with have a military background, which means that they share many of the same characteristics, including discipline instilled during their military service as well as values. Therefore, his followers can personally identify with him, which is another precept of transformational leadership (Yukl, 2013).

The characteristics and tenets of being a military leader also translate into the corporate and academic arena (Bass & Riggio, 2010; Shook & Nelson, 2008):

• “Possessing the flexibility and adaptability to meet the alternating role as leader/follower.” Autry asserted that being able to adapt is key in leadership and as a distance educator. In his position as both a subordinate and a leader like many leaders in management positions within organizations.
• “Developing and improving listening skills in support of successful mission accomplishment.” Autry said that listening and staying involved with various sectors of the organization is essential. As management, he listens to leadership while addressing the needs of his followership.
• “Assessing both your own strengths and developmental needs”.  Autry stated several times that he is open to learn, that he may know how to do something but he has to be willing let others approach tasks. He warned against being stubborn and adhering to traditional ways in lieu of trying something new.
• “Developing subordinate as individuals and as a team while also meeting mission requirements”. Autry asserted that it is important to give responsibility and motivation to those who work for you. He is ardently aware that his leadership is defined by his followership and that he must form relationships to get the most out of individuals so that they can work better in teams and complete tasks.
• “Creating and establishing trust between leaders and followers.” “Do what you say you are going to do,” Autry stated that trust is a must in leadership.
• “Finding a mentor and being a mentor.” Autry still regards his mentors, one a distance education professional and one his former commanding office as friends and men who were willing to help and guide him. Both of these relationships helped to make him the leader is today. Additionally, he is aware of the importance of mentoring those coming up under him.

Conclusion

The interview with Alex Autry was like witnessing many of the theories and practices studied in the class come to life. As both instructor and leader, his chief concerns are for those he is in a position to influence within the guidelines of his organization’s mission, vision, goals, and objectives.  As an instructor, Autry’s abiding concerns are whether the method of delivery is appropriate for the intended audience and if students are learning what they are supposed to learn. As a leader, he is keenly aware of the need to mentor and empower those working under him, his belief that it is better to be part of a great team than to boast about your accomplishments as a leader.

References

Autry, A. (2014, April 02). Interview by K. Hansen [Web Based Recording]. Alex Autry interview. Retrieved from https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/le/11774/discussions/posts/1355671/ViewAttachment?fileId=375920

Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2010). The transformational model of leadership. In Hickman, G. R. (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era, 2nd ed., 76-86. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Burns, J.M. (2010). Leadership (Excerpts). In Hickman, G. R. (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era, 2nd ed., 66-75.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

FGDLA. (n.d.). Alex Autry Jr. Retrieved from http://www.fgdla.us/uploads/Alex_Autry_Bio.pdf

Heller, F. (1973). Leadership, decision making, and contingency theory. Industrial Relations, May73, Vol. 12, Issue 2, 183-199.

Kellerman, B. (2009, June 11). Barbara Kellerman on Followership [Video File]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgLcAF5Lgq4

Lewicki, R., McAllister, D., & Bies, R. (1998). Trust and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy of Management Review. 23 (3), 438-460.

Shook, B., & Nelson, A. (2008). Developing USAF leadership skills via distance education and simulation. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 20(4), 15-20.

Sims, H. P.; Samer, F.; Seokhwa, Y. (2009). When should a leader be directive or empowering? How to develop your own situational theory of leadership. Business Horizons. 52(2): 149-158. Language: English. DOI: 10.1016/j. bushor.2008.10.002.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36(2), 95-101.

Washington, N. (2014). Transformational leadership and its effect on followers from leader perspectives: an analysis of multiple leaders across organizations. US: ProQuest Information & Learning. Retrieved from: PsycINFO.