It's not that they can't. It's that they don't have to be.
Of course they don't. However, marines don't have to be adept in any of the other options across the classes, either, and persuasiveness through speech is something to be commended in a leadership position (XO). Shepard has never been a random grunt, after all.
United States Marine Corps Enlisted Job Descriptions and Qualification Factors
Just have EDI watch Her. It also teaches her how to gently abandon Joker forever.
... gently?!
Well, I suppose the money it cost to get OS1 in the first place wouldn't be gentle.
It's not that they can't. It's that they don't have to be.
Actually that is sort of incorrect.
According to the US Marine Corps there are two basic styles of leadership. The first is authoritarian and the second if persuasive. The authoritarian leads by cracking the proverbial whip, while the persuasive leader leads by using personal charisma to motivate subordinates. Both styles have strengths and weaknesses, and extremes in either style are frowned upon as being the hallmarks of a poor leader. Too authoritarian and you're a martinet despised by your subordinates, lean too persuasive and you're weak and your command likely ill-disciplined. The best leaders take bits and pieces from each style and adapt according to the situation at hand and the personalities of the subordinates.
In any case, some persuasive ability is required.
Yeah, several comments from BW members have all said they basically expect you to have chosen an LI. I know some people don't for various reasons.
Going to repeat something I've said before on the BSN, but it seems relevant: I'm one of those players who almost always skip the romances. The main thing is that the NPC's lack agency in these relationships. As long as you say and do certain things, they're into you no matter how much of a saint or sinner you've been for the rest of the series. Using Miranda as an example (although I think this is true of all the LI's), she may be in love with your ruthless Shepard, but she'd also be in love with my boy-scout Shepard as long as I completed the loyalty mission and chose a couple of upper right-hand dialogue options. That's just not convincing to me.
Also, I've always felt that the NPC's should realistically get a bit bored of Shepard; it's always them having to talk about their stories to him or her, and never the other way around. That seems like a pretty one-sided way to conduct conversation, and makes it hard to see what draws the character to Shepard, other than the fact that Shepard is the PC, or the Hero of the Citadel, etc., which is hardly the basis for a healthy relationship.
Suppose you could have a scene where Liara or somebody asks Shepard something like "What was it like on Torfan?" (I know it's cheesy; Shut up!) Shepard could then do a spiel describing what Torfan was like, and the player could interject at various points to dictate the general tenor of the description; think of the big speeches that Shepard gives after taking command of the Normandy in ME1, or during the suicide mission in ME2.
So you could either say something like "It was horrible, and I hope I never have to make decisions like that again" or "It was totally worth it to kill those Batarian SOBs." Some NPC's would be freaked out by you telling them that killing Batarians is totally worth losing most of your unit, while others might be intrigued by your badassery. The only problem I can see is that it could get really boring repeating the Torfan story nine or ten times, but the point is to make the dynamic between PC and NPC more give-and-take, and provide more opportunities for role-playing.
Strongly agree, but I don't know how much detail they could really go into given that the details of things like Torfan were meant to be filled by player headcanon. Still, I liked how after Virmire the VS (or was it just Ashley?) asked how Shepard dealt with it afterwards - the responses did a lot to shape the character. I could see romance availability being contingent on your actions throughout - DA:O does this pretty well, only downside being that gifts had way too much influence. Killed the Dalish elves? Here, Zevran, have a brick of silver and some new boots. We're good now, right?*snip*
Actually that is sort of incorrect.
According to the US Marine Corps there are two basic styles of leadership. The first is authoritarian and the second if persuasive. The authoritarian leads by cracking the proverbial whip, while the persuasive leader leads by using personal charisma to motivate subordinates. Both styles have strengths and weaknesses, and extremes in either style are frowned upon as being the hallmarks of a poor leader. Too authoritarian and you're a martinet despised by your subordinates, lean too persuasive and you're weak and your command likely ill-disciplined. The best leaders take bits and pieces from each style and adapt according to the situation at hand and the personalities of the subordinates.
In any case, some persuasive ability is required.
Fortunately I wasn't talking about the USMC.
Actually that is sort of incorrect.
According to the US Marine Corps there are two basic styles of leadership. The first is authoritarian and the second if persuasive. The authoritarian leads by cracking the proverbial whip, while the persuasive leader leads by using personal charisma to motivate subordinates. Both styles have strengths and weaknesses, and extremes in either style are frowned upon as being the hallmarks of a poor leader. Too authoritarian and you're a martinet despised by your subordinates, lean too persuasive and you're weak and your command likely ill-disciplined. The best leaders take bits and pieces from each style and adapt according to the situation at hand and the personalities of the subordinates.
In any case, some persuasive ability is required.
As we define it in the Army, and as I've practiced and endlessly taught, leadership itself is something that changes by situation and by leader. We call it Task vs. Relationship style behavior for a leader. No one style is best for any subordinate or unit. I'm a very authoritative Officer, mainly working to to ensure that we're getting the bottom line surpassed and making the standard ever higher. For me, I've settled into that role since I'm the Company Commander's appointed Executive Officer. In an Guard Intelligence Company, I'm often at odds with some of my NCO's over the issues of how to go about dispensing and maintaining discipline.
This is the lesson plan that Officer Cadets and Candidates are briefed for ADP/ADRP 6-22:
SUBJECT AREA
SUBJECT
Developmental Relevancy
During this lesson the Cadet will develop confidence, awareness, initiative, accountability, and the ability to analyze and solve problems while displaying basic and fundamental leader attributes and competencies at the team/squad level. The Cadet will continue to develop as a leader that can improvise and adapt their knowledge and skills to solve problems when facing altered situations.
Lesson Objectives
Following this lesson and completion of all assignments, Cadets will be able to:
· Understand how development, follower readiness and leadership style relate in the situational leadership model
· Identify the four different leadership styles in the situational leadership model
· Identify the four types of follower readiness in the situational leadership model
· Identify the four types of follower development in the situational leadership model
Evaluation Methods
Cadets will be evaluated on lesson content as follows:
· Check on learning
· Class discussions
· Final exam
Instructional Support
This lesson requires the following support and materials:
LCD projector and screen
Slideshow:
Cadet textbook: MSL 202, Foundations of Leadership
DVD:
DVD player
Instructor DVD:
Cadet handout:
Instructor handout:
Quiz:
Quiz key:
Test:
Test key:
Other: _______________________________
References
Content Sources:
· ADP 6-22, Army Leadership with Change 1, 10 September 2012
· ADRP 6-22, Army Leadership with Change 1, 10 September 2012
· Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D.E. (2007). Management of Organizational Behavior, Leading Human Resources 9th edition
Cadre Instructional Guidance
Before Class Instructor Requirements:
· Download and review lesson and presentation from Bb [45 minutes]
· Set up room and LCD for slide presentation [10 minutes]
After Class Instructor Requirements:
· Read Leadership Section 5, Adaptive Leadership in the Cadet textbook
· Grade Transformational Leadership Essays if needed.
Alternative Learning Activities
The following modifications may be needed on certain campuses:
If you cannot use the LCD,
· Print paper copies of the slides for Cadets to use.
· Conduct the discussion with the printed slides from this lesson.
If class size is small,
· Have Cadets provide feedback in a common dialogue.
If class size is large (over fifteen),
· Prior to class, assign Cadets into 3-4 groups; have them brief various parts the class as directed by the instructor.
Cadet Pre-Class Assignments
Cadets are expected to spend an average of thirty minutes to one hour in preparation for class.
· Read Leadership Track, Section 4, Situational Leadership Chapter in Cadet Text
Quiz
· N/A
Video
· N/A
Instructor Lesson Outline
(Main Body)
Slide 1: Applied Situational Leadership
Collect Cadets essays on Transformational Leadership based on the Movie Glory if needed.
Introduce the topic of Situational Leadership.
Ask Cadets if they know what it is.
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 2: Objectives
· Understand how development, follower readiness and leadership style relate in the situational leadership model
· Identify the four different leadership styles in the situational leadership model
· Identify the four types of follower readiness in the situational leadership model
· Identify the four types of follower development in the situational leadership model
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 3: Leadership Review
So far, we have studied several Leadership Theories based on Yukl’s elements of Leadership.
· Trait Theory – The idea that leaders are born with specific traits that make them good leaders.
· Behavior Theory – The idea that leaders behave certain ways. Therefore, you can learn to be an effective leader by learning to behave a specific way. Research did not find a ‘conclusive’ list of behaviors but isolated that leaders tend to have an orientation toward task and/or people.
· Transformational Leadership - The idea that effective leaders appeal to the morals and values to inspire others to follow a leader.
· Transactional Leadership- The concept that focuses on the followers’ self-interests. A leader influences subordinates through an external transaction – “this for that” (quid pro quo) exchange.
· Transformational and transactional leadership are theories involving the broad categories of behavior, influence and facilitating conditions (follower’s attitudes and behavior).
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 4: Basic Concept of Situational Leadership
Now we will review Situational Leadership Theory. According to situational leadership theory, developed by Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson in their pivotal work: Management of Organizational Behavior, there is no best way to influence people. Which leadership style a leader uses depends on the environment and the readiness or capability of the group or the individuals being led.
It is essential to highlight that these variables don’t operate independently or in isolation. They are interactive.
Perhaps most important is that this leadership style is determined by the follower. The behavior of the follower determines the behavior most appropriate for the leader to employ. Specifically, if the follower is engaged and a self-starter capable of accomplishing the task, the leader gets out of the way and allows him/her to work independently. Conversely a follower who is timid and uncertain of how to accomplish the task requires directives from the leader to be successful.
Situational leaders apply the most appropriate or effective leadership styles according to the capability and readiness of the followers to accomplish specific tasks.
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 5: Task vs. Relationship Behavior
How a leader acts in regard to the task and relationship is key to understanding situational leadership.
Task Behavior
Task behavior is defined as the extent to which the leader engages in specifically defining the duties and responsibilities of an individual or group.
Examples of task behavior include: directing people what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.
Relationship Behavior
This is the extent to which the leader engages in two-way or multi-way communication. Such relationship behavior includes: listening, facilitating and supportive behaviors.
High degrees of relationship behavior are required when an impasse is reached in the conduct of an assignment.
Coaching is an example of high relationship behavior.
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 6: Situational Leadership Factors
Situational leadership is based on the readiness and development level of the followers and corresponding leadership style.
Generally the R1 readiness level corresponds with the D1 development level and directing leadership style. R2 corresponds roughly with the D2 and coaching, and so on.
Somewhat paradoxically the most knowledgeable and willing as well as the least knowledgeable followers will receive the least supportive behavior from the leader. The Leader will be more directive with the least knowledgeable and delegate to the knowledgeable and willing follower.
The leader will spend more time on the followers that need to coaching and support. For those that need coaching leaders will be more directive, and less than so with those that need support.
Note: This is sometimes shown as a quadrant. Ask cadets if they have seen this in a different form.
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 7: Leadership Style
· Directing: This style is characterized by above average amounts of task behavior and below average amounts of relationship behavior. The leader tells the follower exactly what to do.
· Coaching: This style is characterized by greater than average amounts of task and relationship behaviors. The leader is teaching the follower providing a lot of support and guidance.
· Supporting: This style is characterized by greater than average amounts of relationship behavior and below average amounts of task behavior. In this case the follower knows more about what needs to be done and the leader is encouraging the follower to act. Supporting can also take the form of facilitating a follower’s development.
· Delegating: This style is characterized by below average amounts of both. The follower knows what needs to be done and has the confidence to do it. The leader also has confidence in the follower’s abilities and reliability.
Follower readiness is the first factor the leader must choose when deciding which style to use.
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 8: Readiness of the Follower
Readiness in situational leadership is defined as the extent to which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task. People tend to be at different levels of readiness depending on the task they are asked to do.
Readiness is not an evaluation of a person’s traits, values, experience, etc. Readiness deals only with how prepared a person is to perform a particular task. It all deals with a particular person and a particular task. Readiness is comprised of two major components: Ability and Willingness
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 9: Ability and Willingness
Ability is the knowledge, experience and skill an individual (or group) brings to a particular task or activity.
· Knowledge: the demonstrated understanding of a specific task
· Skill: the demonstrated proficiency in a task
· Experience: the demonstrated ability gained from performing a task
When considering the ability level of those who are working for you, the leader must consider the task at hand. For example: A Senior Army Aviator with 20 years of flying experience may be of little help in the design of a new jet engine for the aircraft. It is essential to focus on the specific outcome desired and to consider the ability of the followers in light of that outcome.
Willingness
Willingness is the extent to which an individual or group has the confidence, commitment, and motivation to accomplish the task.
· Confidence: the demonstrated assurance in the ability to perform the work
· Commitment: the demonstrated duty to perform a task
· Motivation: the demonstrated desire to perform a task
Willingness may mean that the person is uncomfortable with the situation and, therefore, is not confident that their performance will measure up to the standard.
Remember that even though both ability and willingness are different, they both are interacting factors that influence the system.
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 10: Readiness Levels
Readiness levels are the different combinations of ability and willingness that people bring to each task. The continuum of follower readiness can be divided into four levels. Each level represents a different combination of follower willingness, confidence or ability.
· Readiness level 1 (R1): Unwilling and unable. The follower is unable and lacks commitment and motivation. It may also apply to a person who is Unable and insecure: Where the person lacks confidence to perform to standard.
· Readiness level 2 (R2): Unable but willing. The follower lacks ability but is motivated and makes effort to accomplish the mission. Or unable but confident: whereby the follower lacks ability but is confident as long as the leader is there to provide guidance.
· Readiness level 3 (R3): Able but unwilling. The follower has the ability to perform the task, but is not willing to use that ability or Able but insecure whereby the follower has the ability but is apprehensive and insecure about acting on their own accord.
· Readiness level 4 (R4): Able and willing. The follower has the ability and commitment to perform or able and confident whereby the follower has the ability to perform and is confident to do so.
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Slide 11: Development Levels
Development levels are the next factor that help the leader decide which leadership style to use.
Development levels of Followers are the different combinations of development that followers possess. While not an original component of the Hersey model, it describes four attributes associated with follower development.
The four types of development include: Enthusiastic beginner, disillusioned learner, reluctant contributor and peak performer.
· Development level 1 (D1): Enthusiastic beginner: This follower has low competence but high commitment
· Development level 2 (D2): This follower is a disillusioned learner with Some competence but low commitment
· Development level 3 (D3): This follower is a reluctant contributor with moderate to high competence but variable commitment
· Development level 4 (D4): This follower is a peak performer with high competence, high commitment
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Closing
Slide 12: Closing Briefly review how the lesson covered the objectives.
· Summary
Situational leadership is based on an interplay among:
o The amount of guidance and direction (task behavior) the leader provides
o The amount of socio-emotional support (relationship behavior) the leader provides
o The readiness level that followers exhibit in performing a specific task, function or in accomplishing a specific objective and,
o The development level that a follower possesses in maturity and ability to manage themselves in an organizational environment.
o The Situational Leadership model states that there is no one best way to influence and lead people. The leadership style employed depends upon the readiness level of the follower or the group the leader is influencing
· Review-Lesson Objectives
o Describe situational leadership
o Understand how development, follower readiness and leadership style relate in the situational leadership model
o Identify the four different leadership styles in the situational leadership model
o Identify the four types of follower readiness in the situational leadership model
o Identify the four types of follower development in the situational leadership model
· Questions
· Next Lesson: 09b, Adaptive Leadership
Suggested Techniques:
· Ask open-ended questions.
· Allow Cadets to ask questions
Instructor Notes:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
Cadet Post-Class Assignment
Next Lesson: MSL 202, 09b, Adaptive Leadership
· Read 5, Adaptive Leadership in the Cadet textbook
· Review ADP/ADRP 6-22, search for the word “adapt” in a digital copy of ADP/ADRP 6-22 to familiarize yourself with the need for adaptability and how the Army defines it
· In Lesson 10b, Cadets will give a briefing and short essay based on their research of a selected military leader.
I like how this discussion came about in a love-interest thread. Pertaining to EDI, no less.
Strongly agree, but I don't know how much detail they could really go into given that the details of things like Torfan were meant to be filled by player headcanon. Still, I liked how after Virmire the VS (or was it just Ashley?) asked how Shepard dealt with it afterwards - the responses did a lot to shape the character. I could see romance availability being contingent on your actions throughout - DA:O does this pretty well, only downside being that gifts had way too much influence. Killed the Dalish elves? Here, Zevran, have a brick of silver and some new boots. We're good now, right?
It's definitely something that would have to be finessed by careful writing, for sure. Another possibility would be to have more occasions on which squadmates ask you about your reactions to in-game events (i.e. GARRUS: "Man, that Thorian was pretty messed up, wasn't it? SHEPARD: "Actually, I thought it was pretty cool, all things considered." GARRUS: "Um, looks like I've got some calibrations to attend to. Bye!"). The reactivity to Shepard's behavior is really the most important part for me, as the lack of it is what did the most to undermine my belief in the romances.
And I totally agree with you about DA:O's gift system. Hopefully it doesn't make a return in DA:I.
Strongly agree, but I don't know how much detail they could really go into given that the details of things like Torfan were meant to be filled by player headcanon. Still, I liked how after Virmire the VS (or was it just Ashley?) asked how Shepard dealt with it afterwards - the responses did a lot to shape the character. I could see romance availability being contingent on your actions throughout - DA:O does this pretty well, only downside being that gifts had way too much influence. Killed the Dalish elves? Here, Zevran, have a brick of silver and some new boots. We're good now, right?
This is why I approved of DA2 getting rid of the plethora of gifts, though I don't really care for the weird rivalmancing, and think that Mass Effect would have been much better with an approval system in place. Like, if I push the merc out the window, it should have an effect on your LI, should that person be in the group at the time, of course depending on the character (Jack approves). One bit that I always found kind of funny was how you could be in a romance with Liara, and during LotSB, talk sh*t about the asari to Vasir.
It's definitely something that would have to be finessed by careful writing, for sure. Another possibility would be to have more occasions on which squadmates ask you about your reactions to in-game events (i.e. GARRUS: "Man, that Thorian was pretty messed up, wasn't it? SHEPARD: "Actually, I thought it was pretty cool, all things considered." GARRUS: "Um, looks like I've got some calibrations to attend to. Bye!"). The reactivity to Shepard's behavior is really the most important part for me, as the lack of it is what did the most to undermine my belief in the romances.
And I totally agree with you about DA:O's gift system. Hopefully it doesn't make a return in DA:I.
Hell, I wanted to be able to control character's life and death through this sort of thing as well in the end.
The romances do require quite a bit of RP'ing externally, though to be honest, I think ME2 did a better job in this regard to an extent, with characters having a bad relationship with you compared to other characters in the other two games being and reacting the same regardless of what you really do.
But yeah, I see where you're coming from and completely agree. Hell, Jack would utterly despise my Shepard for approving of what was done to her in the name of science and advancing humanity. But then again, in the gist of a game, you are going to end up with limited ability to define a lot of the stuff that might go on, and you can't have a superbly negative reaction from the squad destroy how the game might turn out.
Fortunately I wasn't talking about the USMC.
That is universal to all military organizations and thus applicable to the fictional Alliance Navy as well. I'd disagree that Shepard (or other Alliance officers or NCOs) wouldn't need to be persuasive at times, as that is part of what makes for an effective leader.
Of course if you're just referring to gameplay, then yes...you don't need to put points into charm & intimidate.
Right. The Alliance military wouldn't be exactly like ours, any more than we're exactly like we were in 1848 or thereabouts. But some things won't change.
My take on the gameplay is that Shepard being a highly effective leader is simply presumed. A Shepard without points in the abilities (or evenly splitting P/R in ME2, or lacking Reputation in ME3) is highly effective, but not extraordinary. Same thing for DA:O, and almost certainly DA:I, and KotOR. DA2, maybe not. You can see Hawke as someone who just blunders into her position -- doesn't one of the companions say something close to that?
That is universal to all military organizations and thus applicable to the fictional Alliance Navy as well.
You're awfull quick to make such an statement, I for one, see no evidence that supports this assertion.
I'd disagree that Shepard (or other Alliance officers or NCOs) wouldn't need to be persuasive at times, as that is part of what makes for an effective leader.
A good soldier obeys without question. A good officer commands without doubt. If an officer finds himself in the need to persuade his men to follow orders, then the fault is theirs.
Are you actually in the military, Fixers?
Are you actually in the military, Fixers?
Is that relevant?
Is that relevant?
Sorta, yeah, considering the other individuals involved in this conversation.
Is that relevant?
Yes, it is. You're saying that an idea that goes hand in hand with military psychology (to the point where it's inherent) doesn't apply because 1) you don't know better, and 2) you claim that you don't see evidence for it.
You're commanding people, not drones. It's their job to follow orders, yes - it's part of the leader's job to make them want to, to motivate, so they do the job better. A balance must be struck.You're awfull quick to make such an statement, I for one, see no evidence that supports this assertion.
A good soldier obeys without question. A good officer commands without doubt. If an officer finds himself in the need to persuade his men to follow orders, then the fault is theirs.
A good soldier obeys without question. A good officer commands without doubt. If an officer finds himself in the need to persuade his men to follow orders, then the fault is theirs.
Incorrect.
Yeah, you could talk sh** about the Asari to Vasir and Liara would say nothing.
And amazing how a thread about love interests changes into how soldiers behave.
Also Tuchanka, quarian/bellyache, "I'm standing right here!"Yeah, you could talk sh** about the Asari to Vasir and Liara would say nothing.
Retour en haut