In
previous entries, I’ve mentioned that I am someone with a caring, empathetic
nature. Because of this, prior to taking the Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale
Test, I assumed that I would side more towards the internal locus of control.
By definition, internal locus of control is the mentality where leaders openly
take responsibility for their actions and follower’s outcome. As Northouse
stated, leaders who side more towards the internal locus of control tends to
favor participative leadership, which involves leaders and followers to share
thoughts and opinions and integrate them in decision making (2015). This is
something I do daily as an academic advisor. Despite students having specific
rules and procedures, it is important for me to consider student issues and preferences.
For example, when a student is newly admitted to the university, we are
required to make degree maps, or a recommended schedule of classes. Though these
are my recommendations, not all students can follow them. For instance, I have
many students who work on second shift, and they cannot take live-session
classes due to the lack of availability in classes in earlier parts of the day.
As a result, it is important to adjust with their situation for effective
decision making. Not doing so will result in a poorer road to success, which I
take responsibility for.
The
Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale Test consisted of a scale of 0 to 13, where
lower scores indicated that internal locus of control is stronger. My results
were surprising. I scored an 8, which is slightly more towards the external
locus of control. In contrast to internal locus of control, external is the
mentality where leaders believe that outside forces are responsible for an
outcome. Those who side more towards external locus of control tends to favor
directive leadership, where leaders provide a set of rules and regulations for
people to follow (Northouse, 2015). After putting more thoughts into why I scored
an 8, it makes sense since advisors are only assisting and recommending things
to the student. In other words, the result of success is more based on student
choice and actions. A good example that demonstrates this is when students
disregard my warnings. It’s rare for students to do this, but whenever I catch required
classes that are rarely offered, I forewarn my students and encourage them to
take the class at a specified term. When students disregard my warnings, the
ending result will be a very angry or stressed student. They may blame me for
the struggle, but it is important to keep in mind that it is the choice or any
outside event they had that initiated the problem.
Though
I may have scored more towards external locus of control, the conclusion drawn
is that we switch sides depending on different scenarios. For my job, I can be
at fault for providing inaccurate or poorly delivered information to my
students. However since my goal as an advisor is to assist students with their plan, it’s mostly up to the student
to get the desired outcome. In my opinion, I don’t believe that leaders who
fall strongly towards external locus of control mostly prefer directive
leadership. In fact, a lot of my advisement is still more towards participative
leadership. For example, I have students who end up in problematic situations
due to how the university runs. To resolve or at least ease the problem, I
usually become empathetic and caring since I can relate to from my past and
current experience as a university student. In the end, I try to come up with
solutions that will benefit the student, myself, and the university.
References:
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and
Practice 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA:Sage Publishing
No comments:
Post a Comment