Class 2-Reflection

Course Name	DYNAMICS OF LEADERSHIP
Course Code	UHPS6013-51
Lecturer and Faculty	Dr. Roslizam bin Hassan, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Technology
Student Name	Sharina binti Hashim
Student Matric Number	MHL254004

Summary & Reflection for: ODL Synchronous Class 2 (6 November 2025)

LEADERSHIP TRAITS AND ETHICS / LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR AND MOTIVATION / POWER, POLITICS, NETWORKING AND NEGOTIATION

For this class, three of my course mates presented on various leadership topics. Mohd Idrisfakaruddin Bin Mohamad Suhaini (Idris), presented on Leadership Traits and Ethics. One of the first things he shared was a quote from Simon Sinek, one of the contemporary Western thought leaders on leadership concepts, on how the “key to successfully lead is influence”. This echoed what Dr. Roslizam had highlighted during our first class when he introduced the concepts of leadership. This intrigued me as I have also watched several of Sinek’s videos on the concept of leadership. Idris then introduced to the class the Big Five Personality Dimensions and how it can be used to measure one’s leadership tendencies and posed the question of whether leaders have all the 5 dimensions at a high level. This resonated with me since my core area of passion is on leveraging on the insights from psychometric instruments (including the Big 5) to assess and analyse behavioural traits towards facilitating self and others’ personal and professional growth.

The following key leadership theories were discussed:

David McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory. I learnt that this theory refers to an individual’s internal drive to achieve goals, master skills and take responsibility for outcomes.
Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. Upon further study on these theories, I learnt that McGregor first discussed these 2 contrasting theories in his book in 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise.

From Idris’ explanation, I note that leaders who find a balance between achievement, affiliation and power tend to be more successful. In discussing Theory X and Theory Y, what was made clear to me is the difference in how based on Theory X, a manager assumes that employees are inherently lazy, dislike work and avoid responsibility. Due to this, the Theory X manager would tend to supervise closely and exercise a more command-and-control leadership approach. I learnt that Theory Y assumes that employees are naturally self-motivated, seek responsibility and enjoy meaningful work. In this respect, I note that managers who practice Theory Y principles would probably tend to use a more participative style of management and promote the employees’ growth.

Upon reflection, I have had my fair share of being supervised by autocratic and directive managers leaning more to Theory X principles. Only in the later part of my career did I get to experience working under managers who subscribe more to the collaborative style of Theory Y. In his presentation, Idris also shared several other concepts such as the Pygmalion Effect, when a teacher believes that a student will perform well (and shows this to his/her student), the student will invariably perform well. I immediately thought of that classic movie To Sir With Love, where the actor Sidney Poitier played the role of a teacher in a class located in London, where the students were labelled as difficult and unteachable. Despite this, Poitier as the teacher believed in the students’ potential and treats them accordingly, which contributed significantly to the students’ success.

The following concepts were also highlighted: Positive Self Concept, Kohlberg’s Three Levels of Moral Development and Ethics in Leadership. Idris shared 2 case studies namely on Microsoft’s Satya Nadella and the Enron Scandal and Bankruptcy that showed the difference between how a leader’s (or leadership team’s) style can ultimately impact the success (or failure) of an organisation.

Mohd Naqib Bin Zulkifli (Naqib) presented the next topic on Leadership Behaviour and Motivation. At the start, Naqib shared that leadership is a complex process and that the objective is for a leader and his/her team to move towards a goal together. Throughout his presentation, Naqib shared several leadership styles and gave an example each of actual leaders who possibly embodied the different styles, including the following:

Transformational Leadership: Naqib gave Barack Obama as an example. Upon reflection, I note that Mr. Obama, who is the 44^th President of the United States, is a globally respected voice on leadership, democracy and civic responsibility. On his leadership style I note that during his presidency, his core message was “Hope and Change”.
Transactional Leadership: Naqib cited Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, as an example. I note this leadership style tends to focus on clear goals and expectations, monitoring performance and rewarding success.
Laissez-faire: Naqib cited Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple as a leader who exemplified this leadership style. I note that in his feedback, Dr. Roslizam posed a question on whether this style of leading gives a negative connotation. In his sharing on this, Dr. Roslizam informed that as an example, within the education space, this leadership style may be suitable for managing teachers who are very competent. Upon reflection and further reading on this concept, I note that when a leader subscribes to the Laissez-faire style, they are essentially providing a lot of autonomy to their followers. So, it is more about non-intervention, not neglect.
Naqib also shared a personal experience he had which I found to be interesting in how the leadership style of 2 different doctors can impact the experience of the staff as well as the patient.

Ms. Lim Sim (Lim) presented next on the topic of Power, Politics, Networking and Negotiation. Based on the concept of how leadership is not so much about position or authority but rather the ability to influence, this topic further hones the importance of managing that balance between having the authority and power to control those under your leadership with the ability to leverage on networking and influencing capabilities to produce positive outcomes.

I learnt about French & Raven’s 5 Bases of Power being Coercive, Reward, Legitimate, Referent and Expert. I note that these refer to the different ways a person can influence others. My further reading on this affirmed that this concept suggested that as a leader, there are different ‘levers’ that he or she can choose to pull, which I summarise as below:

Bases of Power	What it means (as described by presenter-Lim)	Why People follow the leader (i.e likely reason)
Coercive	Power through force or threats	The follower does not want to be punished.
Reward	Power through incentives and benefits	The follower believes the leader can reward him/her.
Legitimate	Power through formal authority or position	The follower notes the leader is in charge.
Referent	Described more as a personal power; and how influence comes from admiration, respect or charisma	The follower respects and likes the leader.
Expert	Described more as a personal power and that the influence comes from knowledge, skills or competence.	The follower believes the leader knows what he or she is doing.

Lim also shared on Cialdini’s 6 Principles of Influence and on how it impacted the 2016 United States Presidential Election. And lastly, on the sub-topic of networking, Lim detailed how the Malaysian contingent during the recent ASEAN Summit 2025 was effective in carrying out the different stages of negotiation and consensus-based diplomacy to build trust resulted in the country being an effective mediator in the Thailand-Cambodia border crisis. On this, I noted the how Lim compared negotiation process as documented in the local medial to the theoretical foundations on the phases of negotiation involving preparation, discussion and resolution.