My interpretation of " Military Leadership" before I was enrolled into SF0002 was to conveniently associate the word "Leadership" with "Leader" as it is how majority of us (superiors and peers) interpret it to be and I do not know the definition of "Military and Non-military Leadership". After going through just lesson one of SF0002, to my astonishment, I realized that the wrong definition of "Military Leadership" have became a gospel truth to most of us. The first insight that I have gained from SF0002 is, that Leadership is not equivalent to a Leader. With the aid of the Leadership concept, I've identified that Leadership is not about me or my superiors; it is about a process involving my ability to influence my subordinates to accomplish missions and achieve outcome in various tasks/projects with a common purpose. In comparison, both Military and Non-military Leadership similarly defines leadership as a process to influence. However, to differentiate them, military leadership uniquely employs the use of doctrinal methods to explain leadership in a military context. In Singapore, it is identified as the "Leadership 24/7 framework". To translate the framework into a personal context, I must influence my peers and commanders to understand the SAF's Mission and Purpose, our operating environment (airspace constraints and concerns) and achieve Mission success, be it high level events (NDP, international conferences etc.) or daily operations (routine controlling). Having said that, I must first align my values to the RSAF core values, sharpen my leadership competencies. With knowledge, charisma and determination, I will be able to command respect and influence those around me to work towards a common objective. I am currently a Cardinal Officer in my unit. Two of my primary objectives are to organize cohesions and team building programmes. The Cardinal team's interpretation of Cohesion is similar to Team Building. After going through SF0002, I realized that the Cardinal team is heading towards a wrong direction. When tasked to organize a team building programme, we will associate it with team bonding and unity. The second insight which I have gained from SF0002 is the differences between Cohesion and Team Building. Cohesion involves what the my team is working on, such as building bonds and uniting people. However, Cardinal is all about having fun and getting together to know each other better. Team Building differs greatly from Cohesion. There are altogether 2 dimensions and a team outcome in the military team building framework. The "task related dimension" develops the team's ability, to understanding the individual roles and functionalities of the team as well as formulating plans and strategies to achieve common objectives. The "teamwork dimension" develops the team's relationship and establishing rules to govern the team's behavior and conduct. Team outcome defines the team's vision and goals, which can be tangible or intangible. Viewing the context of the military team building framework, it makes understanding team building more comprehensive and I'm able to share with my superiors and peers on how to organize a team building programme more effectively. Task 2
Judging from "The Five Factor Model of personality", under "Correlation with Leadership criteria" Extraversion and Conscientiousness factors predicts leadership emergence well, Agreeableness and Emotional Stability however are leaning towards Leadership Effectiveness and neutral for Openness. In my case, I score an average for Extraversion and low for Conscientiousness. With regard to Extraversion, I am very sociable and assertive when it comes to peers whom I am close to and I tend to be more reserved and quiet during the initial "get to know" phrase. Likewise for Openness, I will only open up to close friends and never to strangers. Therefore, my score for Openness is slightly low. As for Conscientiousness, I do not agree with my score because my...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document