Following Your Own True Leadership Style
by John Ruh
I have copied (with permission) several key ideas from the Harvard Business Review article by Daniel Goleman* I firmly believe the basic tenets of the article are incorrect and I respectfully disagree with several of his conclusions. My input follows the overview of the article.
*The entire article, if interested can be read at http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbsp/hbr/articles/article.jsp?ml_subscriber=true&ml_action=get-article&pageNumber=1&ml_issueid=BR002&articleID=R00204
THE IDEA
Many managers mistakenly assume that leadership style is a function of personality rather than strategic choice. Instead of choosing the one style that suits their temperament, they should ask which style best addresses the demands of a particular situation.
Research has shown that the most successful leaders have strengths in the following emotional intelligence competencies: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. There are six basic styles of leadership; each makes use of the key components of emotional intelligence in different combinations. The best leaders don’t know just one style of leadership—they’re skilled at several, and have the flexibility to switch between styles as the circumstances dictate.
THE IDEA IN PRACTICE
Managers often fail to appreciate how profoundly the organizational climate can influence financial results. It can account for nearly a third of financial performance. Organizational climate, in turn, is influenced by leadership style—by the way that managers motivate direct reports, gather and use information, make decisions, manage change initiatives, and handle crises. There are six basic leadership styles. Each derives from different emotional intelligence competencies, works best in particular situations, and affects the organizational climate in different ways.
- The coercive style. This “Do what I say” approach can be very effective in a turnaround situation, a natural disaster, or when working with problem employees. But in most situations, coercive leadership inhibits the organization’s flexibility and dampens employees’ motivation.
- The authoritative style. An authoritative leader takes a “Come with me” approach: she states the overall goal but gives people the freedom to choose their own means of achieving it. This style works especially well when a business is adrift. It is less effective when the leader is working with a team of experts who are more experienced than he is.
- The affiliative style. The hallmark of the affiliative leader is a “People come first” attitude. This style is particularly useful for building team harmony or increasing morale. But its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. Also, affiliative leaders rarely offer advice, which often leaves employees in a quandary.
- The democratic style. This style’s impact on organizational climate is not as high as you might imagine. By giving workers a voice in decisions, democratic leaders build organizational flexibility and responsibility and help generate fresh ideas. But sometimes the price is endless meetings and confused employees who feel leaderless.
- The pacesetting style. A leader who sets high performance standards and exemplifies them himself has a very positive impact on employees who are self-motivated and highly competent. But other employees tend to feel overwhelmed by such a leader’s demands for excellence—and to resent his tendency to take over a situation.
- The coaching style. This style focuses more on personal development than on immediate work-related tasks. It works well when employees are already aware of their weaknesses and want to improve, but not when they are resistant to changing their ways
The more styles a leader has mastered, the better. In particular, being able to switch among the authoritative, affiliative, democratic, and coaching styles as conditions dictate creates the best organizational climate and optimizes business performance.
John Ruh’s Input
Any conversation on leadership style is confusing to most people. When asked, “What is your leadership style?” most people can’t clearly define it unless they’ve experienced one of the tools which describe it. Tools like DiSC, Meyer Briggs or the like, which, when taken honestly, can accurately tell you about your behavior style which is a big part of the equation. The highly conscious leader may be able to switch styles instead of working out of their normal leadership profile, however, most people operate at their greatest effectiveness out of their natural style.
One of the issues Daniel Goleman never addresses is what you do if you are in a room full of divergent personalities. Do you try to constantly shift your point of reference? His idea of using diverse styles is confusing and not practical. It does not stand the test of reality. Can you imagine a successful leader/coach like Bob Knight or Phil Jackson (whose styles are 180 degrees apart) being told to change their leadership style? Yet both are highly successful at bringing out the best in a group of different and often difficult personalities.
Successful leaders are individuals who are skilled at using their own style effectively to empower others to do what they ordinarily wouldn’t. People need to recognize their individual style, capitalize on it, utilize it and compliment themselves with the right support. This is what I call the strength capitalization approach. This is not to say that we can’t and shouldn’t modify our behavior at times, but, I feel it’s impractical to try and learn to master six different styles. Its hard enough to know yourself well enough and master your natural style. I believe people should work at being conscious of their own leadership style and adapt it so their communication is compassionate and understood by all the divergent styles.
What are your thoughts about this? Let me hear from you please and if you need help understanding your leadership style and how it best interacts with others take 15 minutes to take one of the tools mentioned (DiSC) at no charge and/or call me and we discuss this more thoroughly.
P.S. What does Jack Welch, entrepreneur of the century, say about leadership? He says each leader has his own set of rules. He has eight (call/email me for this).
P.P.S. You can also read a piece I wrote on Welch vs. Giulani on leadership.