Short Writing Assignment #1: Leadership Scenarios At Cheyenn

short writing assignment #1: leadership scenarios at Cheyenne Mountain and

The paper must be in APA format with the exception of citations (see below). It should be no more than four pages (words) in length, excluding footnotes and references. The document should be double spaced, with no need for a title page, abstract, table of contents, or appendices. On the first page, include "Short Writing Assignment #1" at the top, followed by your name. Citations in the text should be numbered (X, YYY), with X corresponding to the reference list number and YYY indicating page(s). Each reference is only cited once in the list; subsequent citations reuse the initial number. Citations should attribute ideas/principles, not quotes. The goal is to analyze two leadership scenarios as a consultant, providing clear, concise insights supported by course material. Avoid extraneous information and ensure a high fact-to-word ratio. Do not include personal opinions as a leadership expert; base your analysis on leadership principles. Do not be critical of the instructor's leadership in the scenarios; focus on constructive and insightful application of leadership concepts.

The scenario involves the Deputy Group Commander at Cheyenne Mountain in the early 90s, concerned about a $5 million project to rebuild the fuel storage tank, and a comparison with John Maxwell's leadership story about the activity center project at his church. The assignment requires analyzing the similarities and differences from a leadership perspective, the ethical implications of the leaders' approaches, strategies to gain more buy-in in the Cheyenne Mountain case, and contrasting leadership styles supported by leadership theories discussed in Lincoln, Northouse, and Maxwell's texts.

Paper For Above instruction

The comparison between the leadership approaches in the Cheyenne Mountain scenario and John Maxwell's church project reveals significant insights into leadership dynamics, ethical considerations, and strategies for effective influence within organizational settings. Both scenarios involve leaders navigating complex projects with high stakes, requiring vision, persuasion, and ethical judgment. Analyzing these cases through the lens of leadership theory highlights both similarities and key differences, contributing to a nuanced understanding of effective leadership practices.

From a leadership standpoint, the primary similarity between these scenarios is the reliance on a compelling vision and the need for buy-in to execute that vision effectively. In both cases, leaders had a clear idea of the future that they believed was in the best interest of the organization—Maxwell's vision to replace a widely approved activity center with a new auditorium, and the Deputy Commander’s initiative to cancel a potentially unnecessary fuel tank project. Both leaders employed persuasion strategies to shift organizational priorities, emphasizing the importance of aligning stakeholders with their vision to ensure successful implementation. This aligns with Northouse’s (2018) concept of transformational leadership, which emphasizes inspiring followers to commit to a shared vision, fostering motivation and engagement.

However, significant differences also emerge. Maxwell’s approach was characterized by persuasive communication aimed at achieving broad consensus and minimizing resistance, ultimately leading to widespread support (Maxwell, 1998). Conversely, the Deputy Commander’s attempt to cancel the project met resistance and resentment from the engineers, illustrating a more confrontational or questioning leadership style that prioritized ethical considerations and questioning authority or established plans. These differences reflect contrasting leadership styles—Maxwell’s transformational and charismatic approach versus the more analytical and ethical challenge presented by the Deputy Commander’s leadership. Lincoln’s leadership principles, as discussed by Northouse (2018), advocate for integrity, listening, and ethical decision-making—attributes exemplified by the Deputy Commander’s questioning of the project’s necessity based on legal and environmental grounds. Maxwell’s emphasis on vision and influence demonstrates the importance of charismatic authority and emotional persuasion.

Ethically, the leaders’ approaches raise important questions. Maxwell’s method, leading to widespread agreement, appears ethically sound as it involved honest communication and stakeholder engagement, aligning with ethical leadership principles such as transparency and integrity. On the other hand, the Deputy Commander’s stance was rooted in technical and environmental assessments, yet the project’s justification was based on questionable interpretation of law and procedural hurdles. His attempt to cancel the project exemplifies ethical leadership by advocating for what was right and resisting unnecessary disruption, but it also involved confrontations that could be viewed as insubordinate or challenging authority. Ethics in leadership, as discussed by Northouse (2018), involves balancing honesty, fairness, and respect for followers—both leaders demonstrated these qualities in varying contexts.

To enhance buy-in from the engineers in the Cheyenne Mountain scenario, several strategies could have been employed. First, the Deputy Commander might have engaged stakeholders more collaboratively early in the process, sharing decision-making authority and incorporating their technical expertise into the decision. This aligns with Northouse’s (2018) discussion of participative leadership, which fosters ownership and commitment among team members. Second, transparent communication about the rationale for the project, including environmental testing results and legal interpretations, would have increased trust and reduced resistance. Third, providing opportunities for engineers to voice concerns and contribute solutions could have shifted their perception from opposition to partnership (Goleman, 2000). Finally, demonstrating respect for their professional judgment and involving them in mitigation strategies would have fostered a sense of shared purpose, increasing their willingness to support the project or at least accept its cancellation.

Contrasting the leadership methods, Maxwell’s approach emphasized influence through vision, persuasion, and emotionally engaging followers, leading to enthusiastic support. His stakeholder management centered on mental and emotional alignment, fostering an optimistic and unified community (Maxwell, 1998). Conversely, the Deputy Commander’s leadership was more rooted in ethical reasoning, technical assessment, and decision-making based on correctness and organizational integrity. His method involved questioning assumptions and resisting unnecessary projects, which evoked resentment but aligned with principled leadership. Lincoln’s leadership principles resonate with this approach, emphasizing integrity and moral clarity—sometimes requiring leaders to challenge the status quo for ethical reasons.

In conclusion, these scenarios underscore the complex interplay between vision, influence, ethics, and organizational dynamics in leadership. Effective leaders balance inspiring vision with ethical integrity, stakeholder engagement, and strategic influence. Maxwell’s success demonstrates the power of charismatic influence and consensus-building, while the Deputy Commander’s ethical stance underscores the importance of critical evaluation and principled decision-making. Both approaches have valuable lessons for leadership practice, emphasizing that integrity and vision must be complemented by ethical judgment and stakeholder involvement to lead effectively in challenging environments.

References

• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
• Lincoln, A. (1992). Lincoln on leadership: Executive strategies for tough times. Harper Collins.
• Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership: Follow them and people will follow you. Thomas Nelson.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Keethler, G. (n.d.). Cheyenne Mountain Fuel Storage Tank Episode. Personal communication.