1) The document discusses the Relational Leadership Model (RLM) which focuses on developing perspectives on self, organizational membership, and attitudes towards others. 2) RLM has five spheres: Purpose, Inclusive, Empowering, Ethical, and Process. The author provides examples from their career of how they applied each sphere. 3) The author describes an experience in Iraq where they were ordered to steal equipment tags but obtained the information needed through ethical means instead. This demonstrated applying the RLM spheres effectively.

1. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
1
It would seem that the Relational Leadership Model (RLM) that was discussed in ALED
301 could best be described as a means of developing a personal perspective towards one’s self,
one’s organizational membership, and one’s attitudes towards others and how each perspective
intermingles and influences each other aspect. At the core of RLM is Purpose, perhaps summed
up best in these lines from The Matrix Reloaded:
“There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without
purpose, we would not exist.
It is purpose that created us.
Purpose that connects us.
Purpose that pulls us.
That guides us.
That drives us.
It is purpose that defines us.
Purpose that binds us.”
Purpose, taken out of the movies and put into a personal application for myself would be
my attempts at understanding the mission to each unit I’ve ever been assigned to. When I say
“understanding the mission”, I mean recognizing the most important elements within my unit’s
Military Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE), a document that contains the unit’s
organizational structure and assigned equipment and identifying the most critical assets; then I
simply assess how I can best contribute to the successful employment of those assets.

2. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
2
The first of three supporting spheres; first only by happenstance, not importance, is
Inclusive-(ness). It is a function of each of these supporting spheres to affect the actions that I
will undertake as I seek to fulfill my purpose within my unit. Inclusiveness, by theory, means
that I must be cognizant of: myself and others, my sense of citizenship, my framing of multiple
realities, and my understanding of organizational cultures.
My application of Inclusiveness differs with each person I meet, my past (if any)
interactions with said individual, and by my daily activities. Being cognizant of myself and
others means that I must be able to identify myself as having a different role and responsibilities
as someone else. A failure to establish this basic identity principle is likely to result in a
nonproductive encounter. Having a sense of citizenship is what guides my actions for the
moment. It is my recognition that some action needs to be undertaken that provides me with the
strength to take those first few steps. My ability to frame multiple realities might have something
to do with the nickname the Marines of Marine Air Control Squadron-1 (MACS-1) gave me:
Corporal “Living in Utopia” Sayre. It is the ability to simultaneously see situations for what they
are and for what they could be. Lastly, my understanding of organizational cultures is how I
combine each, previous aspect of Inclusiveness and interact within a situation. It is my ability to
determine if I must educate the senior or junior person on a particular matter or determine if I am
the one that requires educating that determines my level of success.
The next sphere to RLM is, Empowering-(ment). Whereas Inclusiveness is more about
maintaining an internal locus of control; Empowerment is more external in nature.
Empowerment, by theory, means that I must possess an understanding of power and how through
its use I can affect the self-esteem of others, which can in turn influence the implementation of
various policies and procedures.

3. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
3
Because power is such a broad and powerful force, I’ll first list the seven power bases as
defined by psychologists John French and Bertram Raven.
 Legitimate Power – The type of power most commonly associated with a position
within an organization.
 Coercive Power – The type of power that is most commonly associated with
threats and/or force.
 Expert Power – The type of power that is most commonly associated with
specialized knowledge or skills.
 Informational Power – A type of power that is often short-lived in duration as it is
dependent upon having information that others seek.
 Reward Power – This power is very much the opposite of Coercive Power as it is
most commonly associated with gifts and/or favors.
 Connection Power – This is the personal power of the network that is
demonstrated in those instances where one person acts as an intermediate to
someone else.
 Referent Power – The most personal type of power as those seen to possess it are
considered to be charismatic, possessing integrity, and/or having other positive
qualities.
The power bases that I find myself frequently employing are: legitimate, expert,
informational, connection, and referent. Legitimate and expert powers are both bound to my
position within an organization. I have often considered my Military Occupational Specialty
(MOS) to be but a representation of my expected knowledge base where others within the
organization is concerned and a probable set of duties and responsibilities that I might encounter

4. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
4
throughout my career as far as I measure my own concern. Informational and connection powers
are perhaps the most tentative for me. I am more a garden hose than gatekeeper as far as
informational flow is concerned and feel quite the opposite in matters of personal connections,
finding some element of formality in informal settings. Referent power is perhaps the one I
ration and rely upon the most. My priorities have been to be a knowledgeable and proficient
professional within my field and I have found that by having and sharing technical knowledge
with others does create a type of appreciation in others that typically manifests itself in the form
of creating a favor system. That is to say when people tend to find value in your abilities, they
are more likely to respond to suggestion.
The last of RLM’s purpose supporting spheres is, Ethical. This sphere is very much about
maintaining a balance between internal and external lotuses of control. The Ethical sphere, by
theory, means that I am driven by some sort of value system and that I use those values in
administering justice and care, determining my self-worth and worth in others, and that those
values guide me in ethical decision making.
I cannot say that I have ever sat down and seriously considered what my own personal
values might be or how they could be hobbled together to form a value system. While growing
up, I used to play the paper and pencil role-playing game of Dungeons&Dragons. I typically
enjoyed playing a character that was driven by a sense of honor and duty to others; I enjoyed
playing many variations of the shining knight in white armor. I think that had an effect on my
ability to readily accept the core values of the United States Marine Corps.
 Honor – Marines demonstrate Honor by having and displaying integrity. Integrity
is a sort of moral fortitude that brings truth to a Marine’s actions, words, and

5. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
5
deeds. Marines further demonstrate Honor by having and displaying a sense of
responsibility. Being responsible means Marines take ownership of their actions,
words, and deeds for whatever good or bad fallout that might result from them.
Marines also further demonstrate Honor by having and displaying a sense of
accountability. Being accountable means Marines will not shy away from their
actions, words, and deeds but instead embrace them with whatever consequence
that might result.
 Courage – Marines demonstrate Courage by doing the right thing, in the right
way, and for the right reasons. Doing the right thing means that Marines will
choose the harder moral path over the easier one. Doing things in the right way
means that Marines will let the potential greater good guide their decision making
process. Doing things for the right reasons means that Marines will consider
subjugating their own personal desires for the benefit of others.
 Commitment – Marines demonstrate Commitment by having and displaying
devotion to the Marine Corps and to their fellow Marines. This devotion is
displayed by providing an unyielding support to their fellow brother-in-arms. This
was made clear to me on an early Saturday morning when I was woken in my
barracks room to assist my fellow Marines and reinforced the following Monday
morning because of my Saturday reaction. Unyielding support becomes a work
ethic.
Lastly, to complete the RLM model, there is the Process sphere; this sphere encompasses
all of the previous ones: Purpose, Inclusive, Empowering, and Ethical. Perhaps unlike any of the
previous spheres of RLM, the process sphere is almost about forfeiting any sort of notion of

6. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
6
control, although there is a slight emphasis towards an external locus. Here in the Process sphere
the priorities shift from any one individual and instead concentrate on the group process and its’
sense of community insofar as a systems perspective is created and maintained by all members.
As a young Marine I was given the following two pieces of advice: always follow the last
order that I was given and to always respect the rank/authority of those persons senior to myself
when unable to respect those individuals as people themselves. These two pieces of advice seem
to serve as a mechanism of automating the internal goings-on of each of the RLM composite
spheres.
A more recent example of this would be during my second deployment to Iraq. The year
was 2007 and I was in the Army now. I remember early in the deployment my leadership and I
were engaged in a discussion on what our in-country role was going to be and how to best
achieve that end. My leadership was comprised of Captain (CAP), Warrant Officer (WO), and a
Sergeant First Class (SFC); I was next in the chain-of-command.
The Captain was someone whom we all agreed was an odd component to our section.
The Warrant Officer was someone whom we all agreed was an extremely knowledgeable person
but was simply a difficult person to be around. The Sergeant First Class was someone that I
found to be an agreeable person, if admittedly not a trained logistician. With my training and
experiences as a Marine and with those experiences of my first deployment underneath me, it
turned out that I was the closest we had to being a trained and effective logistician.
One day our Warrant Officer managed to get his hands on a Radio-Frequency
Identification (RFID) Tag burner. The vision he had was to support one of the results of our
earlier in-country discussion: we were going to be tracking our unit’s equipment as it was

7. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
7
shipped around the country and RFID tags were going to be used to do so. One of the problems
we soon encountered was the procurement of the tags themselves. To this day, I still find it hard
to believe that I was ordered to go steal them from the local supply activity that had them.
I went down to the supply activity and located the tags easily enough, but was
uncomfortable with the thought of stealing them and even more weary of the potential
consequences that could result if I were to get caught, so I found myself an option B. I located a
Sergeant, same pay-grade as myself, and decided to ask him some questions regarding how they
used the RFID tags and what he knew in regards to the transportation system, i.e. what happened
to all the stuff after they put it onto the truck. His answers became much more helpful and my
questions more pointed when I explained to him that I was ordered to come over here to steal his
RFID tags from him.
Although I do not remember going back to my office with the tags, I do remember going
back with something exceedingly more valuable: information. I shared my findings with my
Sergeant First Class and from that we had our own discussion on how we could use this
information to meet our mission of tracking our unit’s equipment, which we eventually did.
I will summarize my tale of how I almost became a thief and utilized the Relational
Leadership Model in bullet points below:
 Purpose – We are to track our unit’s equipment as it moves within the Iraqi
theater transportation system so that our commander can better make certain
operational decisions.

8. ALED 301 Leadership Theory in Practice: Relational Leadership Model
8
 Inclusive – The personnel dynamics of the section were challenging and unique.
For the most part personal differences and opinions were set aside so that we
could come together as a section.
 Empowering – Everyone brought something to the table in the form of technical
and/or organizational knowledge. Our diverse backgrounds and skill sets enabled
us to piece together a solution to our problem.
 Ethical – My Sergeant First Class and I both agreed that stealing from another
unit was wrong. Doing so might have brought some benefit to our unit that would
surely have come via the detriment of another. However, it took my going to the
scene of the would-be crime that provided me with the opportunity of seeing the
ground operations of the supply activity, which in turn was a source of inspiration
to ask around.
 Process – I objected to the notion of stealing and prepared myself for the prospect
that doing so might be justifiable. Although I disobeyed my original order, I came
back with information that we were eventually able to use so that we could
effectively execute our mission.