Let’s Talk Leadership
There are many different leadership styles and ways of thinking about leaders. In this post, I examine some common leadership frameworks and consider situations that warrant a specific approach.
We all remember leaders we’ve encountered, mostly the very good ones or the very bad. Although all species that form social groups have leaders and hierarchies, humans are unique in that we often choose our leaders through voting for them, or via hiring or promoting them.
It shouldn’t be surprising that there are a lot of different leadership styles. Everyone has different personality traits and varying degrees of social intelligence. Every organization or group that needs a leader will respond differently to various leadership styles often impacted by the strengths or weaknesses of the group. It’s the fit that is most critical.
Fit means both that the leader has adopted a stye that is authentic to their personal traits and values AND that the style will be effective for the group being led in the context of what the group is trying to accomplish. Most leaders gravitate to a certain style or blend, but if the leader is flexible enough, there are those who have success adopting a style that matches the need. Let’s examine some of the most common leadership styles and scenarios where they’re the most effective. Just for fun, we’ll also cover examples that highlight ‘leaders gone bad’ and what to avoid.
How many styles are there really?
There isn’t a fixed number of leadership styles per se, and new methods are always emerging as generations change and culture shifts. There are some frameworks, however, that create a useful way of thinking about individual differences in how leaders respond to decision making and managing their group. Let’s take a look at three of these frameworks. The first was developed by Kurt Lewin in 1939 that focuses on who is calling the shots, the second is an ‘emotional’ model that has been adopted by many thought leaders in the space including Daniel Goleman. The names vary, but there are generally 6 different categories of leadership behaviors in this model. The final model contrasts so-called transactional leaders with transformational leaders. Literature suggests that modern businesses have significantly better outcomes with transformational leaders, and importantly, that through coaching or training any leader can adopt this approach.
Lewin
Lewin’s framework suggests a spectrum of leadership style that contrasts primarily who is making the decisions. As the far end is an Autocratic Leader who makes all the decisions without input from the group and expects members to immediately comply often without any explanation or ‘why.’ Often referred to as ‘My Way or the Highway’ this is the classic style often mocked by descriptions of horrible bosses and it IS the style most prone to misuse. Nevertheless, there are situations where it might be temporarily necessary, such as when there is a crisis or if there is an extremely urgent deliverable. When bombs are falling, there is no time for decision by committee! Leaders with this tendency must be cognizant of overuse, as this approach will drain staff motivation over time and it can have a profoundly negative effect on a team. Use when necessary, then adapt.
In the middle of the spectrum is the Participative Leader. This style takes input from the team, much problem solving is collaborative, and ideas are sought from everyone. In studies this style was the most effective, in that although the group produced somewhat less, it was of higher quality. This approach builds trust with employees through empowerment and the process of being heard. It’s particularly effective if the leader doesn’t have as much direct experience or knowledge as the team and when not under a tight deadline.
At the far other end of the spectrum is the Delegative Leader, sometimes referred to as the ‘Laissez Faire’ approach. No surprise, this is the least intrusive leadership style where team members are left to do their jobs as they see fit. According to research, it is both the least satisfying and the least effective style, but I have seen examples of it successfully deployed for highly competent groups; IBM Research is a good example. If there is trust and employees can be relied on to do their jobs it might make sense, but if it’s used in the wrong setting, chaos can ensue.
Emotional Leadership Styles
The emotional framework has some overlap with Lewin’s model if you look closely. The Autocratic style maps quite closely to a Commanding Leader focused on results, efficiency, and an expectation that the staff does exactly what they’re asked. The hold both all the authority and all of the responsibility. Where team members are very inexperienced and don’t have the knowledge or skills to participate in problem solving, this approach can be necessary.
The Democratic Leader maps to Lewin’s Participative style and I’ve also seen it referred to as a Collaborative Leader. Organizations that need to innovate generally find this very effective, particularly in groups that are actively creating solutions to client problems.
Here we diverge into new territory, likely styles that have emerged more recently as a result of the changing nature of work and the prevalence of knowledge workers. The Visionary Leader, sometimes referred to as Authoritative, offers a ‘follow me’ approach where they naturally mentor, are motivating and tend to inspire their followers. They have a powerful ability to drive progress and usher in periods of change through inspiration and earning trust for new ideas. It requires getting to know each team member and is very hands on, but not in a micro-manage kind of way. It’s a very helpful style for small, fast-growing organizations and start-ups, or larger ones that are going through transformation.
Similar to the Visionary Leader, the Coaching Leader spends many hours and energy getting to know each team member and providing the support they individually need to grow and be a more effective contributor. This style is useful when someone new has joined the team, if the leader is coming into a group filled with skepticism and distrust, or if you need to implement a new solution or process but the team will need to learn how to shift to the new way of working. This style builds rapport and trust and will increase the motivation of the team.
The Servant Leader, also referred to as an Affiliative Leader, shares some of the characteristics of Coaching and Visionary Leaders. The main tenant here is that these leaders put the needs of others first. They create strong relationships and enable their followers to reach their full potential. Creativity and problem-solving thrive where team members are empowered to suggest new solutions and build upon each other’s ideas. This creates a stronger sense of loyalty amongst team members which typically leads to increased productivity and high levels of trust. These leaders are a natural listener with high levels of empathy and they facilitate a positive culture and high morale. Adopting this style is very effective when taking over as a new leader and you need to quickly build trust.
The final style in the emotional model is the Pacesetter. This approach is a good one when the team needs to achieve fast results, or when launching a new project and a whole new slate of daily tasks need to be completed. As the name suggests, this is leader is out front setting the example for how to complete the work as well as the speed with which it needs to be done. It can help the team stay on-track and avoid mistakes, but it can lead to miscommunications and stressed-out employees always pushing to a goal or deadline. Use it when you need high-quality results from a motivated team, quickly. Pay attention to leveraging strong motivational skills though, or you aren’t likely to get the best from the team.
Transactional vs. Transformational Leaders
The last model we examine contrasts a transactional approach to leading with a transformational one. The academic and author Bernard Bass has written extensively about why it is so imperative for leaders to adopt the qualities of Transformational Leaders. Transactional leaders see work as an exchange. Good work is recognized and rewarded, poor work is penalized. Bass sees this as often a “prescription of mediocrity.” Transformational leaders elevate the work being done by illustrating the purpose and mission of the group and are able to motivate the team to want to see the group succeed rather than be focused on their own interests. They do this in one or more ways. They exhibit high amounts of charisma and inspire their followers (a lot like visionary leaders), they meet the individual needs of each team member (leading isn’t a one size fits all proposition), and/or they are intellectually stimulating. They are emotionally intelligent, energetic and passionate. What’s most important here is that Transformational Leadership can be learned. If you are a leader and you haven’t assessed yourself on transformational traits or if you haven’t gotten any feedback from subordinates on how you are perceived, you are missing an opportunity to be a more effective leader no matter what other leadership style(s) you leverage in various situations.
Why do so many get it wrong?
So, why does it feel like there are so many poor, ineffective leaders out there in the wild? Clearly being a good leader is a commitment, takes energy and requires a significant amount of social and emotional intelligence to succeed, but is just that? In my opinion, too many leaders expect their teams to adapt to them, not the other way around. Even arguably good leaders can find themselves in a situation where they are no longer effective. Bill Belichick of the New England Patriots is one of the most celebrated coaches in football history, but his leadership style is no longer what most teams and players want today. Belichick was notorious for wanting full control. Today’s players want to relate to their coaches as people, they want to feel empowered. They want to know why they’re doing something. Who knows, maybe Belichick will adapt and we’ll see a different version of him at a future team. I would argue that leaders who can’t adapt to lead in a way aligned to the situational need will face one of two scenarios: their teams will fail to deliver and they will be fired, or if given the opportunity, they will remove any team member who doesn’t respond to the style being demonstrated. Both are bad for teams and both are bad for business.
