| LEADERSHIP STYLES THAT GET RESULTS
The author
works with a leading management consultancy firm in India.
Who is an effective leader? How do effective
leaders manage their various skills such as - setting a competitive strategy, motivating
their employees towards their vision and mission, which translates financial,
organizational and social objectives. There are abundant books and articles on leadership
styles and also 'Leadership Experts' who have made careers out of testing and coaching of
leaders. At the end of it all, one may not be wiser still.
The author Daniel Goleman - who is well known
for his two books 'Emotional Intelligence' and 'Working with Emotional Intelligence' - in
an article titled "Leadership That Get Results" in Harvard Business Review dated
March-April 2000 attributes this reason for lack of quantitative research that
demonstrates which precise leadership behavior yield which type of organizational results.
He points out the research of consulting firm
Hay/McBer on random sample of 3871 executives selected from a database of more than 20,000
executives worldwide which has demystified the effective leadership. The research found
six distinct leadership styles, each springing different components of emotional
intelligence. The implications of this study, is their clear-set guideline for action. If
offers a find understanding of how six different styles affect which type of
organizational performance and results. It also offers guidance how an effective leader
switches between these styles seamlessly and also uses a combination of these styles
depending on the business situation.
The six distinctive styles of leadership are
:
leader is one who demands immediate compliance to
his dictates. His style is 'Do What I Tell You'. He creates a reign of terror, bullying
and demeaning his executives, roaring his displeasure at the slightest missteps in
achieving the business goals. This style is the least effective, because of top-down
decision making; it snuffs the ideas and the creativity from the bottom rung of employees.
And, high-performing employees who are motivated by more than money, this style erodes
their performance. But it has its use. It can break failed business habits, shock people
into new ways of working. And in turning around a company or when a hostile takeover is
looming.
leader is a visionary; he motivates people by
making clear to them how their work fits into a larger vision of the organization. This
style maximizes commitment to the organization's goals and strategy. By framing the
individual tasks within a grand vision, this leader defines standards - giving performance
feedback positive and negative - which revolves around that vision. This style works well
in almost any business situation, particularly, when a business is adrift. But while
working with a team of experts or peers, who are more, experienced than the authoritative
leader, it gives an impression that the leader is being pompous and out-of-touch. If this
leader becomes overbearing, he also undermines the egalitarian spirit of an effective
team.
revolves around its people - its proponents value
individuals and their emotions more than tasks and goals. The leader keeps his employees
happy and creates harmony among them, which has positive effect on communication leading
to sharing ideas, inspiration and building trust. Because of this style, flexibility also
rises among employees giving employees freedom to do their job in the way they think is
most effective. This leader gives ample positive feedback on their day-to-day efforts,
which is all the more motivating. These leaders are natural relationship builders. This
style should not be used alone. Its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance
to go uncorrected, employees may perceive that mediocrity is tolerated. If one uses this
style in close conjunction with the authoritative style, he would have a potent
combination.
leader builds trust, respect and commitment by
spending time, getting his people's ideas and buy-in. By letting his employees themselves
have a say in decisions, that affect their goals and how they do their work, this leader
drive up flexibility and responsibility. He also by listening to employees learns to what
to do, to keep morale high. In this democratic set-up, his followers are realistic what
can and cannot be accomplished. This approach is ideal when a leader is himself uncertain
about the best direction to take and needs ideas and guidance.The drawback of this system
is, it can lead to endless meetings where ideas are mulled over, consensus remains
elusive, and the only visible result is more meetings, particularly when crucial decision
have to be taken. In times such as this people end up confused and leaderless. This style
also makes much less sense when employees are not competent or informed enough to offer
sound advice.
leader sets extremely high performance standards
and exemplifies them himself. He is obsessive about doing things better and faster. He
pinpoints poor performers and demands more from them. If they don't raise to the occasion,
they will be replaced who can. This destroys the organization climate, as employees feel
overwhelmed by pacesetter's demand for excellence and their morale drops. Guidelines for
working may be clear in the leader's head, but he/she does not state them clearly; he/she
expects employees to know what to do. The pacesetter either gives no feedback on how
people are doing or jumps in to take over when he/she thinks they're lagging. And if the
pacesetter leaves, his flock suddenly becomes directionless. This style should be
sparingly used, and works best when all the employees are self-motivated professionals,
highly competent and need little direction and coordination, like in R&D and legal
firms.
leaders help employees identify their unique
strengths and weaknesses and tie them to their personal and career aspirations,
encouraging them to establish long-term development goals and help them to conceptualize a
plan for attaining them. They give plenty of feedback and instruction. Coaching leaders
excel at delegating, even if it meant the tasks would not be accomplished. Their prime
motive is long-term learning of their followers. Although this style works best, it is
seldom used, because many leaders don't have time in this high-pressure economy for the
slow and tedious work of teaching employees to grow. This style works well in many
business situations and works particularly well when employees are already aware of their
weaknesses and would like to improve their performance. In contrast, the coaching style
makes little sense when employees, for whatever reason, are resistant to learning or
changing their ways. The other danger of this style, is when the leader lacks the
expertise to help the employees to grow.
Excerpted from Harvard
Business Review, dated March-April 2000, p78-90, from Leadership That Get Results by
Daniel Goleman |