4.2 Leadership Styles

So let’s look at that fourth function of management, leading. And I’d like to introduce you to some new advances in leadership. So I’d like to introduce you to this revolution, this evolution of leadership. First brought forward as situational leadership by Ken Blanchard in the 1960s. It all depends. The preferred actions really needs to depend upon the variables of the situation. And one needs to consider all of one’s experience and options before choosing a course of action, and flexibility is the key. An article that was published in, in 2000, in the in the Ap, March and April addition of the Harvard Business, Business Review. Pictures a, an executive with a bag of golf clubs, a full bag of golf clubs. And that picture really is to stimulate why does one need all of those clubs. A new leader, a new golfer may only use three or four clubs and be able to manage their way through the course. The same for leadership; a new leader may only choose or use one leadership style. Over time as one gets more and more experienced and faces more and more situations and courses and wins, and sand traps and water, one becomes experienced on how to use each of those different clubs or leadership styles. So the article is called, Leadership That Gets Results, published by the Harvard Business Review in March/April edition of 2000. Written by Daniel Goleman. And in that article, Daniel puts forth the research based upon Hay and McBer’s research where they followed 3,871 executives to determine what leadership style they were using. And how it affected different situations in the organization. Responsibility, flexibility, celebration, standards and commitment. So, it was based upon these, on these 3,871 executives, raw research was presented and it identified six leadership styles. And leaders with the best results were able to move seamlessly over time back and forth through these six leadership styles. So what were they? Well, these six leadership styles you will see in the article, that I encourage you to use as recommended reading, you will see that two styles destroyed the environment, produced negative results. Left the environment, the organization, the culture worse off than had they not been used and four were very positive. So these six styles were first, coercive. The coercive leader demands immediate compliance, do what I tell you to do, I don’t need you to give me a lot of input. You need to carry out command and control. Coercive leaders. There are times and places when this needs to be used. With extremely crisis situation. An earthquake, a fire. Running out of money. You only have 30 days left to keep the business afloat. Problem employees that nothing else works with. Authoritative leaders creates a vision. Creates goals and alignment, and helps people understand what we need to do. Expectations and steps and how do we get there, and this leader’s style mantra says, come with me, let’s do it together. Affiliative leaders. Affiliative leaders build teams, build organizations, build groups of high performing teams based upon relationships. People are important. Democratic leaders who build consensus, get involvement, get buy in. Ask people to contribute their ideas on how do we make things better together, continuous improvement. Pacesetting leadership. I will set the pace. I will show you what to do. Then, you need to be highly competent and highly motivated and you need to do it alone. Don’t ask me for help. Don’t ask me for feedback. Just go do it. If you can’t do it, I’ll find somebody else. And lastly, coaching leaders. Leaders that spend the time, invest in their people in order to get to long term right skills. So I said there were two of these leadership styles that left the organization worse, had negative results. Can you pick out which two they are? Well, you might see that they are the two on the far ends of the skill. On the y axis over there, you see employee involvement, from very low to ascending to very high. And on the x axis, you see management direction to low or no to very high. So pacesetting says employees, you’re on your own. I’m really not gonna be there for you, I’m not gonna give you direction, I’m not gonna give you feedback. You’re self motivated, you’re competent, go get it done and deliver the results. And if you can’t, I’ll find somebody else. The corrosive leader just says I don’t need your involvement. I don’t need your suggestions. I don’t need your input. I can figure this out on my own just, you know, go back to work and do your stuff. Those two leave the organization worse. Have a place. Short-term. Very specific. Probably should not be used as a long-term style. So, what’s the package? Well the best package is the other four. Starting with authoritative. Creating vision, expectation, goals. Giving clear direction. Here’s what we need to do together in order to accomplish the goals of our organization or team. Affiliative used with, or authoritative, to build a network, to build an affiliate, an, affiliation, to build a strong net group unity based upon relationships and trust. Coaching to develop the right skills for the future. And to get you involved. What do you think we can do to improve? So, write clear direction, authoritative, building a team, create a mo, creating a motivating environment, building the right skills for the future. And get you involved into what we are doing, so that you are part of this awesome team. So, this group of six leadership styles, hot topic. How do we train individual leaders in order to understand the advantages and disadvantages of these six leadership styles?