Collaborative Leadership in Tower Building Challenge

I used the collaborative principle of leadership during the freestanding paper tower building challenge. We were given minimal supplies; just paper, scissors and sellotape and we had to construct the highest tower. We were required to spend 10 minutes deciding upon the best strategy and plan before we were allowed to start building. Once the 10 minutes were up, we had to implement the plan through evenly distributed jobs. I tried to be as inclusive as possible and everyone shared an idea, then collectively, we decided upon the best idea. Once we had decided upon one plan, other people chipped in suggesting ways to alter the plan to improve it. For this scenario, collaborative leadership was the best approach. If I had tried to implement an

Lynda Moultry Belcher from “Demand Media”, said that an issue with collaborative leadership is “Too Many Faux Leaders”. She believed that when you have a collaborative group, it is likely that too many people will be domineering and try to lead the group. This can cause tension among the group and result in a loss of control. However, in my group I found the opposite was occurring. I spent too much time initially trying to coax people to participate in collaborative decision-making. The majority of the group were taking a backseat and not willing to contribute. This may be because our class were randomly divided into groups. Friends had been split up and a few people were shy. During the first five minutes, people were not contributing and we did not have any ideas. Collaborative worked well once members of my team began

For the ball game where I implemented transactional leadership, my team were strong competitors throughout the game, with a high chance of winning. For my team, transactional leadership was highly effective as were all temporarily motivated for the pizza lunch. However for other teams, this leadership method was not effective. One team was far behind and struggling. Once they became aware they had no chance of winning, participation amongst their team diminished as they had resigned to the fact that they were going to be punished. This reduced team cohesion and morale and they did not appear to be having fun. The extent or how substantial a reward is will generally determine the magnitude of participation. For example, if the reward was iPhone 6’s for all players that won the ball game, the teams would be more motivated to win than if the reward was a chocolate bar. Not many people were phased by the punishment of having to run two laps around the field. The losers even enjoyed the punishment. This meant the team could give up without too big of a consequence. If the punishment had been more severe, the prospect of losing could not have been an option. This means that not only were they motivated to win but if they know they cannot, at least they can fight to not come