The problem with strong leadership is that it can create a
command and control culture which undermines cross-functional communications,
collaboration and co-operation. An insistence on sticking to the up and down
chain of management can also compromise capacity and creativity which along
with communications, collaboration and co-operation are key to change.
My favorite study on the subject of leadership is Daniel
Goleman’s Leadership That Gets Results, a landmark 2000 Harvard Business Review
study. Goleman and his team completed a three-year study with over 3,000
middle-level managers. Their goal was to uncover specific leadership behaviors
and determine their effect on the corporate climate and each leadership style’s
effect on bottom-line profitability.
The pacesetting leader…
expects and models excellence and self-direction. If this
style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “Do as I do, now.” The
pacesetting style works best when the team is already motivated and skilled,
and the leader needs quick results. Used extensively, however, this style can
overwhelm team members and squelch innovation.
The authoritative leader…
mobilizes the team toward a common vision and focuses on end
goals, leaving the means up to each individual. If this style were summed up in
one phrase, it would be “Come with me.” The authoritative style works best when
the team needs a new vision because circumstances have changed, or when
explicit guidance is not required. Authoritative leaders inspire an
entrepreneurial spirit and vibrant enthusiasm for the mission. It is not the
best fit when the leader is working with a team of experts who know more than
him or her.
The affiliative leader…
works to create emotional bonds that bring a feeling of
bonding and belonging to the organization. If this style were summed up in one
phrase, it would be “People come first.” The affiliative style works best in
times of stress, when teammates need to heal from a trauma, or when the team
needs to rebuild trust. This style should not be used exclusively, because a
sole reliance on praise and nurturing can foster mediocre performance and a
lack of direction.
The coaching leader…
develops people for the future. If this style were summed up
in one phrase, it would be “Try this.” The coaching style works best when the
leader wants to help teammates build lasting personal strengths that make them
more successful overall. It is least effective when teammates are defiant and
unwilling to change or learn, or if the leader lacks proficiency.
The coercive leader…
demands immediate compliance. If this style were summed up
in one phrase, it would be “Do what I tell you.” The coercive style is most
effective in times of crisis, such as in a company turnaround or a takeover
attempt, or during an actual emergency like a tornado or a fire. This style can
also help control a problem teammate when everything else has failed. However,
it should be avoided in almost every other case because it can alienate people
and stifle flexibility and inventiveness.
The democratic leader…
builds consensus through participation. If this style were
summed up in one phrase, it would be “What do you think?” The democratic style
is most effective when the leader needs the team to buy into or have ownership
of a decision, plan, or goal, or if he or she is uncertain and needs fresh
ideas from qualified teammates. It is not the best choice in an emergency
situation, when time is of the essence for another reason or when teammates are
not informed enough to offer sufficient guidance to the leader.
My view is that you need different approaches at different
stages of managing change. Once the inertia is overcome (perhaps by coercive and/or
authoritative leadership) then the emphasis needs to be creating an organisational
snowball effect which focusses more on the team than the leader (perhaps by pacesetting,
affiliative and/or coaching leadership)
Sticking to the leadership style that mobilises change
ironically can sabotage the organisational communications, collaboration, capacity
by creating a dependency upon the leader and stifling the creativity and
co-operation which makes real and lasting change happen. If change is entirely dependent
upon the leader then it cannot be regarded as having any more substance or permanence
than the role and the incumbent.
ciChange is really interested in visual leadership, visual
projects and visual communication. Let us know what you think.
Tim Rogers
Founder ciChange
timrogers@ciChange.org
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/CI-Change-4301853
ciChange seminar and networking events for 2013 sponsored by
Total Solutions Group http://www.tsgi.co/
No comments:
Post a Comment