Application Of Rottmann, Sacks And Reeve's Grounded Theory Of Leadership

During summer, I was given an opportunity to intern at an engineering laboratory as a research assistant. Together with three other undergraduate students, we worked closely with and under the supervision of Dr. Chua, the Chief Research Officer, to design a Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology prototype. It was exciting to see how weeks of ideation culminated into the prototype stage, where we built a model to test the design we have developed. Unfortunately, our first prototype failed as the team did not consider a multitude of factors. After undergoing various trials and modifications, our team eventually arrived at a breakthrough and launched a functional prototype.

Assessment Question

The assessment question that this reflection will seek to answer is: Would Dr. Chua and his team be able to achieve their goal of producing the prototype without any one of the three orientations in Rottmann, Sacks and Reeve’s grounded theory of leadership? In this case analysis, it will be argued that all three pillars of engineering leadership orientations are crucial in helping Dr. Chua and his team accomplish their research goal.

Analysis

Firstly, Dr. Chua had displayed technical mastery extensively in the view of Rottmann et al. No sooner had we learnt the basic theories of RO than we advanced to create a prototype. With most of us being complete novices, we struggled with even the fundamentals of the design application. Recognizing that our team was grappling with limited knowledge about the subject matter, Dr. Chua patiently coached us with his expertise and constantly provided us with enlightenment, in addition to addressing our incessant queries. Rottmann et al. interprets this as a sign of positive leadership influence, as he was a respectable figure and “go-to” resource to the team. He refrained from spoon-feeding us, but instead relied on prompts, guiding our team through questions than answers, with the aim of developing us to become critical and systems thinker. This is to say that Dr. Chua was an excellent mentor, as he was able to listen to the team’s problems and engage the team in erudite discussions as a way of imparting his knowledge. Throughout the research project, Dr. Chua communicated strongly and effectively with his team – an underlying and enabling engineering leadership skill espoused by Schell. Thus, the success of the prototype is certainly attributed to Dr. Chua’s technical mastery in terms of his mentorship for the team to analyze technical issues and troubleshoot effectively.

Secondly, Dr. Chua had embodied the collaborative optimization leadership orientation as detailed by Rottmann et al. At the beginning of the project, Dr. Chua matched the individual capabilities of each research assistant to different job tasks and set a common vision for the team. According to Paul and Lynne, an effective engineering leader can leverage on the members’ strengths and influence them to work toward a vision. Moreover, Dr. Chua’s drive to inspire the team was evident, manifesting itself in the increased confidence and personal development of each team member, fostered under the guidance of Dr. Chua. As heightened morale translates into enhanced performance, it is with no doubt that Dr. Chua was able to form and catalyze a high-performing team. As Paul and Lynne suggested in their engineering leadership competencies framework, the prototype would certainly not have succeeded without Dr. Chua’s acumen for coaching, giving and receiving evaluation and feedback. Therefore, collaborative optimization is an indispensable factor which contributed to the success of the prototype. Thirdly, Dr. Chua had exhibited organizational innovation immensely as outlined by Rottmann et al. When the initial prototype proved to be ineffectual, the team became shackled with a creative block. Despite the mental fatigue, Dr. Chua was flexible in introducing remedies. He thought out of the box and helped the team to tide over the period of low productivity by altering the constraints on the testbed. This is an uplifting moment for the team because no one had thought of modifying the testbed due to the hassle of re-calculations. This is a calculated risk to take because a huge amount of time could be wasted to generate a dysfunctional prototype. The success of the second prototype was a result of his willingness to take calculated risks, as any alteration to the testbed could lead to a backlash, resulting in restarting all over again.

Rottmann et al. has argued that Hence, it is argued that organizational innovation played a pivotal role in the success of the prototype during the second attempt.