FINAL NARRATIVE

Hi everyone,

I see a lot of familiar faces but for those of you who I haven’t had the opportunity of meeting yet, my name is Krystal Brownfield.  I feel honored to have been selected for the Marriott Management Development Program and will continue to contribute to the leadership team here at the beautiful San Diego Marriott Marquis and Marina in the DW’s Restaurant food and beverage outlet.

I am privileged to be here with all of you  and I am really excited to being this process.  Just to give you a brief background of myself- I was born and raised in a small city in Northern California.  I decided to move to San Diego because it just seems like a city that has it all, and I won’t lie and say that the 70 miles of gorgeous beaches didn’t help with the decision.

I am a recent graduate of San Diego State University’s Hospitality & Tourism Management program with an emphasis in meetings and events.  My goal is to remain in a constant state of growth while consistently setting new goals for myself and this team. I am a driven individual and confident that my understanding of the importance of communication, teamwork, organization, passion and dependability will work well with the amazing team that has already been
established here.

For the last two years, I have been working at this property. I began my time here as a seasonal server at the Tiki Bar during the summer.  Upon completion of that, I was asked to stay on staff and work at the Lobby Lounge as a food runner and then later on a cocktail waitress.  As most of you know, I later moved over to this outlet and have been a host and server here with you at DWs.  I am very aware that most of you have been working in this particular outlet and in the hospitality industry much longer than myself. I want each of you to feel empowered to make your own decisions when faced with situations and know that I will support you 100%.  If for some reason it wasn’t handled properly then we can work together to find an approach that will be more effective in similar situations in the future.
  

During my time as your co-worker, I learned that each of you possesses different strengths and each have a passion for different aspects of your jobs.   I don’t know about you, but I am most inspired by people who are passionate. Passion is one of those traits that are contagious.  If you care strongly enough for something, it will radiate and make others want to be a part of it.  I would like to work together to make this restaurant not only a great place where we can provide exceptional service and amazing experiences to our guests but also a place that you are proud to work at. 

 In order to achieve this, I will be spending my first week speaking to each of you in turn. We will have a one-to-one opportunity to acknowledge challenges that you are facing in your role as well as what needs to be done for you to reach your goals.  I want to highlight the fact that I will rely on you to be honest with me and, in turn, I will be honest with you. I have high expectations for every one of you and I have no doubt that, together, we can exceed our goals.

To me, leadership is not a role, it's a process involving how an individual influences others towards a particular goal. I have included the image of a sunflowers life cycle to help you grasp my idea of leadership.  After preparing this and trying to place myself in a singular stage, I realized leadership is not always a linear process. There is a lot of back and forth that takes place.  I believe leadership development occurs across one's life span.

My leadership journey is just about to pick up pace as I take on this new challenge.  Each individual encounters different experiences that shape their views and values and no two leaders are identical.  Some of us are more relationship oriented while others are much more task oriented.  In my opinion, I fall somewhere in the middle.  It is important to me to connect with my team but still be as productive as possible.  

I am a big believer in the Situational Leadership Theory which states that there is no "best" style of leadership.  I plan to analyze each situation before making any decisions on how it would best be handled.  The most successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the maturity of the individual or group they are attempting to lead.
 

Along with the values I have already mentioned, I believe that a leader should be empowering, inspirational, empathetic, enthusiastic, knowledgeable, have integrity, the ability to adapt & the endurance to conquer whatever adverse obstacles they encounter. 

During this coming week I would like you to come up with a few values that are most important to you to discuss in our one- on-one meetings.  This will help me get a better understanding of what is most important to each of you.

I am a very approachable person and my door will always be open to each and every one of you.  If you need anything, don’t hesitate to ask.

Thank you!

My Leadership Map

HTM491- Krystal's Leadership Map

Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model

I believe that a huge part of being a leader is based upon the ability to effectively make decisions.  Leadership is based around being able to make decisions, set goal, conceive vision, all while keeping in mind the ideas of your followers in order to gain their buy in and support to achieve a goal. Vroom-Yetton-Jago Normative Decision Model is similar to the situational model in the sense that it explains the importance of making decisions that pertain to each situation.  A leader will be most accepted when making decisions and suggestions if the decision is appropriate to the situation.

This theory is based around two ideas: decision quality & decision acceptance.

Decision quality is defined as “the selection of the best alternative, and is particularly important when there are many alternatives. It is also important when there are serious implications for selecting (or failing to select) the best alternative.”

I really enjoyed the steps that were laid out on the website: http://decision-quality.com/intro.php
1. Realize when and why you need to make a decision.

2. Declare the decision: decide what the decision is, how you’ll work it, and who should be involved.

3. Work the decision: generate a complete set of alternatives, gather the information you need to understand the possibilities and probabilities, and ultimately make a choice that best fits your values.

4. Commit resources and act

The second idea is decision acceptance.  This is “the degree to which a follower accepts a decision made by a leader. Leaders focus more on decision acceptance when decision quality is more important.”

Vroom and Yetton defined five different decision procedures (ranging from autocratic to consultative to group-based decisions) on the situation & level of involvement.

These procedures include:

“Autocratic Type 1 (AI) – Leader makes own decision using information that is readily available to you at the time. This type is completely autocratic.

Autocratic Type 2 (AII) – Leader collects required information from followers, then makes decision alone. Problem or decision may or may not be informed to followers. Here, followers involvement is just providing information.

Consultative Type 1 (CI) – Leader shares problem to relevant followers individually and seeks their ideas & suggestions and makes decision alone. Here followers’ do not meet each other & leader’s decision may or may not has followers influence. So, here followers involvement is at the level of providing alternatives individually.

Consultative Type 2 (CII) – Leader shares problem to relevant followers as a group and seeks their ideas & suggestions and makes decision alone. Here followers’ meet each other and through discussions they understand other alternatives. But leader’s decision may or may not has followers influence. So, here followers involvement is at the level of helping as a group in decision-making.

Group-based Type 2(GII) – Leader discuss problem & situation with followers as a group and seeks their ideas & suggestions through brainstorming. Leader accepts any decision & do not try to force his idea. Decision accepted by the group is the final one.”

I found the following list to be very insightful.  It explains situational factors that influence which method should be used.

• When decision quality is important and followers possess useful information, then A1 and A2 are not the best method.
• When the leader sees decision quality as important but followers do not, then G2 is inappropriate.
• When decision quality is important, when the problem is unstructured and the leader lacks information / skill to make the decision alone, then G2 is best.
• When decision acceptance is important and followers are unlikely to accept an autocratic decision, then A1 and A2 are inappropriate.
• When decision acceptance is important but followers are likely to disagree with one another, then A1, A2 and C1 are not appropriate, because they do not give opportunity for differences to be resolved.
• When decision quality is not important but decision acceptance is critical, then G2 is the best method.
• When decision quality is important, all agree with this, and the decision is not likely to result from an autocratic decision then G2 is best.

http://leadershipchamps.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/vroom-yetton-jago-normative-leadership-decision-model/

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/theories/vroom_yetton.htm

CRASH

CRASH

Transformational Leadership

“Transformational leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality.”
                                                                                                                                              - James MacGregor Burns

In the article, “The Themes and Theory of Leadership: James MacGregor Burns and the Philosophy of Leadership” by Matthew R. Fairhol it states that “A professor of management once told a friend, that if he comes upon an article on leadership and notices the bibliography does not include Leadership by James MacGregor Burns (1978), he dismisses it as unthoughtful and incomplete.”  James MacGregor Burns was born in 1918 and has since become a well known figure for those who study theories of management and transformational leadership.  He has won many awards for his innovation in leadership theory.  Burns theory shifts away from studying the traits of leaders to focus on the interaction of leaders.  His theory is based upon the interpersonal relationships that a leader must form with his/her followers in order to achieve a mutual benefit.  Burns’ theory of transformational leadership creates a clear distinction between the concepts and functions of leadership versus management.  Based on their values and morals a leader should be able to connect and engage their follower in order to achieve a higher sense of performance, fulfillment, and purpose for both parties.  His theory can be applied to virtually any institution whether it be a political, corporate, social, family, or volunteer group.

I chose the Karate Kid trailer to illustrate an example of transformational leadership. The two main characters in this film create a relationship in order to accomplish a common goal.  The leader in this example has a strong moral compass and stands strong in his values.  He is able to connect with the young follower in order to motivate him to become a much more confident and strong individual.

"Life Is Like A Cup Of Coffee"

I stumbled upon this video and thought it was only appropriate that I share it because the name of my blog is COFFEE con (with) Krystal Ann... Hope you enjoy!

YOU DID WHAT?! Situational Leadership Theory Match/ Mismatch

In the post right below this I discussed the Situational Leadership Theory developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard.  Based on this theory I will recount an instance from the follower perspective and indicate how the “matching” made the instance positive as well as how the “mismatch” made the instance negative.

I serve out at a pool during the summer.  The incident I am about to describe happened on a very hot (meaning BUSY) summer afternoon.  I was one of two opening servers on this particular day.  Around noon we had a call off meaning that we were now under staffed and still just as overwhelmingly busy.  At my work, missing meal breaks is taken very seriously.  However, when we are working out by the pool it can be difficult to take a break due to how we organize the sections and the rate at which our “tables” turnover. My sixth hour was approaching and I needed to take a break but I had 15+ checks open, nobody to cover my section (because ever server was just as busy) and I couldn’t reach a supervisor on their phone.  Our supervisor was nowhere to be found. The window of time that I needed to take my break passed. About an hour later my supervisor showed up as things were beginning to slow down and asked in front of a group of guests if I had taken my break.  I replied calmly “No, I was unable to because we were so busy out here.”  She literally yelled at me like her five year old child and reprimanded me in front of a co-worker and a group of guests.  This can be described as a “mismatch” in Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Theory.  She came into the situation with a much different view on what was happening and addressed it in a manner much different from what I was anticipating.  This “mismatch” in leadership styles created an array of negative emotions on both accounts.  I was so incredibly shocked that she had yelled at me about not taking a break in front of people.  At first I thought she must be joking but soon realized that she was not joking at all.  Being a subordinate I tried to stay calm and replied with, “We were extremely busy and there was nobody out here to coordinate sections or help out with breaks. I tried calling you multiple times but you were not answering your phone.”  I apologized for missing my break but I had way too many checks out to just walk away and go on break.  Things escalated very quickly and I asked if we could take the disagreement to her office to spare the rest of my associates the uncomfortable situation we were creating for everyone.  Due to the mismatch of leadership styles used in this situation I lost a lot of respect and trust for this particular supervisor. 

After we talked for about half an hour we came to understand each other’s views on this particular situation.  Things had calmed down and her style of leadership slowly began to change to match what I had initially anticipated.  We were able to communicate on a similar level and resolve the situation.  In order to effectively communicate we had to both compromise and adapt to one another.  The Situational Theory focuses on the leader transforming their leadership style to the situation and their followers.  However, the initial response and behavior to this situation would definitely be an example of a mismatch that created very negative responses.

Blog Comparison

FOUR

The number of hours I have spent in Starbucks reading everyone’s 

HTM491 Leadership Blogs.

ZERO
The number of blogs that I strongly disagree with.

After reading through the first five blogs, I became determined to continue and find a blog post that had an opinion that strongly differed from my own.  Four hours later, I realized that there wasn’t one that I could strongly debate.  All of the blogs posted for the HTM491 assignments share a fairly similar view on leadership qualities as well as the overall opinion of the trait theory.  I didn’t find one blog that stated a person could not BECOME a leader through environment, education, or life experiences.  There was a common consensus that an individual could be BORN with certain traits that gave them a leg up on the competition however, did not discredit the idea that ANYONE could become a leader through other means than birth. 

The main difference I found between the blogs was how the information was relayed.  We have all been given the same prompts, yet all addressed the assignment with a different voice.  Some people used humor while others got very deep in their ideology and reasoning for their opinions and views.  I really enjoyed seeing all of the different templates and designs used on the different blogs. 


One blog that really caught my attention after reading through it was Erin Bartle’s Blog.  I felt as if I was reading through my own thoughts.  Erin mentioned her strong trait of compassion for people and her love for the movie “Freedom Writers.”  After reading her blog, it became apparent to me that we have a lot in common.  This movie is my absolute favorite movie and made me excited to continue reading her blog.  I was curious just how similar our views were.  

Erin stated, “Although there can be many traits associated with a good leader, the number one trait I admire is passion.  If you have the passion and have the drive to reach a particular goal I find it’s hard for someone to stop you.” I loved that she mentioned “passion” as an important trait. I am most inspired by people who are passionate.  I don’t care what you are passionate about, but if you have enough enthusiasm about something… I am going to want to join you. Passion is one of those traits that are contagious.  If you care strongly enough for something, it will radiate and make others want to be a part of it.  I believe passion is the strongest driving force in life.

Contingency Theory & Situational Theory:

Contingency Theory:
The Fiedler contingency model is a leadership theory developed by Fred Fiedler based on the study of leadership styles and behaviors rather than traits and personal characteristics of leaders.  His work suggests that “the leader’s effectiveness is based on ‘situational contingency’ which is a result of interaction of two factors: leadership style and situational favorableness.”

Fiedler created the Least preferred co-worker (LPC) scale, an instrument for measuring an individual’s leadership orientation.  The LPC scale asks a leader to recall their least preferred co-worker and score them “using a series of bipolar scales of 1 to 8, such as the following: Unfriendly v. Friendly, Hostile v. Supportive, Guarded v. Open.

“The responses to these scales (usually 18-25 in total) are summed and averaged: a high LPC score suggests that the leader has a human relations orientation, while a low LPC score indicates a task orientation.” Leaders who receive a higher LPC score are assumed to be relationship motivated and tend to describe their least preferred co-workers in a more favorable light.  Leaders who are task motivated have a strong approach when scoring their least preferred coworker and receive lower LPC scores.

The second factor in Fiedler’s theory is situational favorableness.  “According to Fiedler, there is no ideal leader. Both low-LPC (task-oriented) and high-LPC (relationship-oriented) leaders can be effective if their leadership orientation fits the situation. The contingency theory allows for predicting the characteristics of the appropriate situations for effectiveness.

Three situational components determine the favorableness of situational control:

-          Leader-Member Relations, referring to the degree of mutual trust, respect and confidence between the leader and the subordinates.

-          Task Structure, referring to the extent to which group tasks are clear and structured.

-          Leader Position Power, referring to the power inherent in the leader's position itself.

When there is a good leader-member relation, a highly structured task, and high leader position power, the situation is considered a "favorable situation." Fiedler found that low-LPC leaders are more effective in extremely favorable or unfavorable situations, whereas high-LPC leaders perform best in situations with intermediate favorability.”

There is no universal or “best” way to manage; nor is there a perfect leadership style.  This theory suggests that the success of a leader is dependent upon different situational variables, the qualities of the followers and that improving effectiveness requires changing the situation to fit the leader, known as "job engineering."

Situational Theory:
The Situational Leadership Theory, is a leadership theory developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard.  Much like the contingency theory, the foundation of the Situational Leadership Theory is there is no solitary "best" style of leadership. Managers must use different leadership styles depending on the situation. It also supports the idea that “effective leadership is task-relevant and that the most successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the Maturity ("the capacity to set high but attainable goals, willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience of an individual or a group for the task) of the individual or group they are attempting to lead/influence. That effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but it will also depend on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished.”

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory rests on two fundamental concepts:

-          Leadership Style

-          The Individual or Group's Maturity Level

Their model allows you to analyze the situation using their levels of maturity, competency and commitment to decide on which Leadership Behavior/ Style would be most appropriate. Your leadership style will vary from one person to another depending on followers’ competencies and commitment in their task areas. 

“Hersey and Blanchard characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Task Behavior and Relationship Behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behavior types, which they named S1 to S4:

S1: Telling - is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, why, when, and where to do the task

S2: Selling - while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socio-emotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process.

S3: Participating - this is now shared decision making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviors while maintaining high relationship behavior.

S4: Delegating - the leader is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.

Of these, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation.

Maturity Levels

The right leadership style will depend on the person or group being led - the follower. The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory identified four levels of Maturity M1 through M4:

M1 - They generally lack the specific skills required for the job in hand and are unable and unwilling to do or to take responsibility for this job or task.

M2 - They are still unable to take on responsibility for the task being done; however, they are willing to work at the task.

M3 - They are experienced and able to do the task but lack the confidence to take on responsibility.

M4 - They are experienced at the task, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They are able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task.

Maturity Levels are also task specific. A person might be generally skilled, confident and motivated in their job, but would still have a Maturity level M2 when asked to perform a task requiring skills they don't possess.”

This model has four development levels of the follower.  This information should be used in order to establish the most appropriate leadership style that should be used.

D4: High competence and high commitment- experienced at the job, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. May even me more skilled than the leader.

D3: High competence and low/variable commitment- experienced and capable, but may lack the confidence to do it alone, or the motivation to complete the job quickly and efficiently.

D2: Low competence and high commitment- may have some relevant skills, but won’t be able to do the job without help.  The task or the situation may be new to them.

D1: Low competence and low commitment- Generally lacking the specific skills required for the job in hand, but has the confidence and/ or motivation to tackle it.

Both Fiedler’s Contingency Theory and Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory suggest that there is not one universal style of leadership that works in every case.  A leader’s behaviors should match the situation at hand.  The Contingency Theory focuses more on the leaders personality and how they respond in certain situations.  Whereas the Situational Theory focuses on the leader transforming their leadership style to the situation and their followers.

"According to Fiedler, a task-orientated style of leadership is more effective than a considerate (relationship-orientated) style under extreme situations, that is, when the situations, is either very favorable (certain) or very unfavorable (uncertain)" (Gannon 361). Task-orientated leadership would be advisable in natural disaster, like a flood or fire. In an uncertain situation the leader-member relations are usually poor, the task is unstructured, and the position power is weak. The one who emerges as a leader to direct the group's activity usually does not know any of his or her subordinates personally. The task-orientated leader who gets things accomplished proves to be the most successful. If the leader is considerate (relationship-orientated), he or she may waste so much time in the disaster, which may lead things to get out of control and lives might get lost.”

A personal example of a task-oriented leader would be dealing with a group of individuals for a group project.  During my IDS class we were assigned a group for our semester project.  I didn’t know any of my group members prior to this project.  Without knowing each other’s strengths, weaknesses, skills or personality, we were asked to assign a group leader.  There was one guy in our group who I found to be completely arrogant and insisted that he should be our group leader and be in charge of delegating tasks rather than doing research or preparing a section of the project.  We agreed to let him be the leader due to his persistence and undying self-confidence.  It wasn’t until a few weeks had passed that I realized we hadn’t met as a group to discuss the different parts of our project.  We didn’t have a timeline and not all of the sections had been assigned to group members yet.  The amount of work that had to go into this project was outrageous and I was beginning to think we wouldn’t have enough time to finish it.  With my GPA on the line and a group who was becoming increasingly discouraged with the project, I stepped in.  I am usually a very relationship oriented leader but when this situation occurred, I was forced to check my emotions at the door and not worry about hurting feelings. I assigned the “group leader” a section of the project, sent out an email with all the assignments listed and due dates for each section.  I asked for schedules and set up meeting dates and booked a room in the library for each week leading up to our project due date.  I much prefer to be the one who connects with my group members but in this instance a task-oriented leader was what our group needed.

An example of the situational theory would be a captain of a dance team.  There is always going to be diversity in teams.  It is important to evaluate the maturity and competency of each member and analyze how to address the team as a whole as well as how to address each individual on the team.  I would not expect a first year member to know everything that a 4 year member would know.  In order to be a successful leader you must know who you are leading and understand the different levels of competency, commitment and maturity.   

Active Archetypes: Jester & Caregiver --> Shadow: Orphan

Jester being the strongest score I received, it is the most active in my life.  This means that I assume that life is meant to be enjoyed.

The assessment stated:

“At your best (now or when you fulfill your potential), you are happy, playful, funny, and fun to be around. In fact, you bring out the joy in life for everyone around you, showing others how to "be here now," to be playful and inventive, to enjoy the gift of living, even in stressful or difficult times. When everyone else is going crazy with fear and anxiety about how much change is going on in the world, instead of feeling anxious, you experience a rush of excitement. Like court Jesters and wise fools everywhere, you have a deep wisdom and use humor to say things with impunity that others might not want to hear. Implicitly politically incorrect, you are irreverent and apparently unconcerned with what others think, but really know how to share what you think in ways that provoke laughter, not outrage. In fact, you find nothing more satisfying than making others laugh.

When problems arise, you think outside the box. Having a trickster side, you know how to maneuver so that others help you out, like Tom Sawyer getting friends to paint his fence. By nature, you also look for ways to enjoy the process of dealing with the issue.

You tend to notice chances for fun in almost any situation, clever ways to get around obstacles, and the absurdities of life, which eventually become the basis of funny stories. Like a kid in a candy store, you are drawn to new experiences, the more the merrier. You may be a bit oblivious to the seriousness of situations or how seriously others are taking them.

You may want to be on guard against the Jester's tendency to be irresponsible, to give into debauchery (it is fun to party!), or to play tricks or make cracks that really hurt people—or at least hurt their feelings. You may also fail to take yourself seriously enough to fulfill your own dreams.

You like and live stories that are playful and fun. A natural clown, you enjoy stories that are light, humorous, and perhaps satirical. Even with very serious or upsetting material, you prefer approaches that emphasize the absurd.  You see yourself as helping to free people from their illusions, depression, and a limited view of life's possibilities.

As a leader, you may find that others look to you, especially for solving contradictions and problems in the current system/regime. However, you may not be comfortable in thinking of yourself as a leader, and the acceptance of leadership is likely to be an important area of growth. Without this acceptance, you may eschew not only the trappings but also the responsibility of leadership, leaving your followers feeling startled and even abandoned.

You want to be seen as a fun person, so you try not to do or say anything that makes you seem boring or a drag on others. This means that you may clown your way through difficult times, making it difficult for others to be there for you.

Others may appreciate your humor and enjoy being around you. They also may wish you would stop fooling around, settle down, be serious, and get a life.

You may (or do) benefit from:

Being certain to fulfill your responsibilities, even if they are boring

Finding fun ways to do work that might seem routine or dull

Remembering to have empathy for how others may experience your jokes

Taking time to clarify your values and protect what and who are really precious to you

Practicing moderation and common sense”

I also scored high as a Caregiver with a 27/30.  Although I scored a 28/30 as Jester, I believe that my archetype is a strong mix between these two archetypes. I am often very sarcastic and known as the jokester but when it comes right down it, I have a very nurturing instinct and would NEVER want to upset anyone.

As a caregiver I assume I should help others.

“At your best (now or when you fulfill your potential), you may demonstrate a saintly nature, full of love and caring for your fellow creatures. You model altruism both in material ways and in seeing others with kind, compassionate, and forgiving eyes. You make the world a safer and gentler place for everyone. In most of your relationships, you act like a caring parent who creates nurturing environments where people can heal or grow.

When problems arise, your tendency is to notice who is hurting and try to do whatever you can to help them, perhaps even without thought to what it will take to do so. You are likely to provide emotional sustenance and comfort; guide and teach; perform maintenance tasks that allow a system to operate (cleaning, repairing, editing, decorating, etc.), and build a sense of community characterized by nurturing relationships.

You tend to notice problems concerned with the physical and emotional side of life—poverty, ill health, and the ways people hurt one another. You immediately take action to help people in need. You also focus on resources and strategies for helping, being open to a wide field of possibilities for aid and comfort. Everything else, including one's own health and well being, may escape notice, except in exhaustion, when what beckons is anything that revives energy (like a good meal or a talk with a close friend).

You may want to be on guard against the Caregiver's tendency to use control and manipulation to get people to do what the Caregiver thinks is best. Caregivers may be uncomfortable asserting their needs directly, making it easier to use guilt or other means to get their needs met. In their desire to help, they martyr themselves, undermine their health, and, in modeling this behavior, implicitly pressure others to burn themselves out as well. If they are not careful, they also enable others' weaknesses, reinforcing rather than reducing their dependency.

You like and live stories where a kind and giving person demonstrates generosity by helping others in ways that make a real difference and where others show their gratitude by giving back or where the Caregiver learns to balance care of the self with care for others.

As a leader, you have (or could have) a wonderful ability to take care of those you lead—whether family members, employees, constituents, or community members. You also have a natural ability to provide wonderful customer or client services, simply because you really care about others. For this reason, people tend to trust you, so you partner well with other individuals and groups.

You want to be seen as generous and caring, and you want to avoid doing anything to seem selfish, self-aggrandizing, or egotistical.

Others may appreciate your kindness and generosity, take advantage of you, or deride you as controlling and codependent.

You may (or do) benefit from:

Making sure your own physical and emotional needs are met, showering the same quality of care on yourself that you habitually show to others. 
Expecting others to do everything they can for themselves, thus avoiding the unconscious habit of enabling others' weaknesses and fostering dependency.

Learning to have good boundaries, saying "no," protecting your time and priorities.

Letting others give to you and appreciating their efforts on your behalf.

Balancing the virtues of the Caregiver with those of the Warrior.

Learning to say "no" and remaining aware of my priorities has been a struggle of mine.  I am becoming much better at prioritizing.  I have noticed that it not only benefits me to tell others no sometimes because it allows me to do other things to my best ability without stretching myself too thin.  

Krystal’s Shadow Archetype:

The lowest score I received was as the Orphan. This archetype assumes that it pays to be careful.

At your best (now or when you fulfill your potential), you demonstrate the resilience to survive life's tragedies and disappointments, a deep egalitarian belief in the dignity of ordinary people, a hard-boiled realism that does not need to sugarcoat life, and a deep empathy for others, especially those in need. You may also make effective use of self-help, twelve-step groups, or friendship networks; and you may band together with others to advocate for those who are weak, hurting, poor, or otherwise in trouble.

When problems arise (which they always do), you may have a tendency to feel like "here we go again." This can either trigger a sense of despair or, conversely, boost your confidence in your ability to weather hard times. You tend to articulate the problem clearly (bear witness), emphasizing how serious it can be if not addressed, and work (alone or with others) to get the attention of those who can fix it. Recognizing that not all problems can be solved, you also try to help people support one another to cope with intractable issues that will not go away.

You tend to notice and anticipate difficulties so that you can head them off, serving as the squeaky wheel that gets attention to a problem. With people, you are careful to discern their character before placing any trust in them, and you have an acute awareness that whatever can go wrong will. You may fail to notice opportunities, especially if they come from unexpected sources or in unanticipated ways.

You may want to be on guard against the tendency to be fatalistic, cynical, or fearful of trusting again because Orphans have been let down many times. In fact, the worse things get, the less likely you are to trust others and get the help and support you need. Often you hunker down, protect your turf, and let others cope as best they can. As an Orphan you can excuse your own hurtful actions because "everyone does it," "the person deserved it," "it was really the other person's fault"; or you can use the bad things that have happened to you as an excuse for inappropriate behavior.

You like and live stories that begin with trauma, betrayal, or victimization, in which a person learns the skills and perspectives that allow him/her to overcome adversity or survive difficulties. You also may be attracted to rather fatalistic or cynical stories, as well as stories where the dispossessed help one another.

As a leader, you are (or could be) realistic about what can be accomplished, you do not promise what you cannot deliver, and you are good at identifying problems and addressing them. You are empathic with people in difficulty but not likely to let them use excuses to get away with not doing what they are supposed to do.

You want to be seen as realistic, tough, and resilient, and you want to avoid seeming naïve or like a potential patsy or victim.

Others may appreciate your tough-minded realism, your self-deprecating or sometimes cynical humor (think Dilbert cartoons), and your resilience. While others may sympathize with the difficulties you have gone through, they also may be put off by what to them seems like chronic whining, complaining, or negativity. Some may try to rescue you while others may identify you as a target for victimization.

You may (or do) benefit from:

Avoiding settling for too little; instead setting your sights higher, being willing to excel.

Collaborating with others for self-help or for economic or political advantage.

Disconnecting responsibility from blame, so that you can take responsibility for your life without blaming

yourself or others when things go wrong.

Learning what part your own behavior might play in your difficulties and making indicated changes.