Taking a team
from ordinary to extraordinary means understanding and embracing the difference
between management and leadership.
According to writer and consultant Peter
Drucker, "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right
things."
Manager and
leader are two completely different roles, although we often use the terms
interchangeably. Managers are facilitators of their team members’ success. They
ensure that their people have everything they need to be productive and
successful; that they’re well trained, happy and have minimal roadblocks in
their path; that they’re being groomed for the next level; that they are
recognized for great performance and coached through their challenges.
Conversely, a
leader can be anyone on the team who has a particular talent, who is creatively
thinking out of the box and has a great idea, who has experience in a certain
aspect of the business or project that can prove useful to the manager and the
team. A leader leads based on strengths, not titles.
The best
managers consistently allow different leaders to emerge and inspire their
teammates (and themselves!) to the next level.
When you’re
dealing with ongoing challenges and changes, and you’re in uncharted territory
with no means of knowing what comes next, no one can be expected to have all
the answers or rule the team with an iron fist based solely on the title on
their business card. It just doesn’t work for day-to-day operations. Sometimes
a project is a long series of obstacles and opportunities coming at you at high
speed, and you need every ounce of your collective hearts and minds and skill
sets to get through it.
This is why
the military style of top-down leadership is never effective in the fast-paced
world of adventure racing or, for that matter, our daily lives (which is really
one big, long adventure, hopefully!). I truly believe in Tom Peters’s
observation that the best leaders don’t create followers; they create more
leaders. When we share leadership, we’re all a heck of a lot smarter, more
nimble and more capable in the long run, especially when that long run is
fraught with unknown and unforeseen challenges.
Change
leadership styles
Not only do
the greatest teammates allow different leaders to consistently emerge based on
their strengths, but also they realize that leadership can and should be
situational, depending on the needs of the team. Sometimes a teammate needs a
warm hug. Sometimes the team needs a visionary, a new style of coaching,
someone to lead the way or even, on occasion, a kick in the bike shorts. For
that reason, great leaders choose their leadership style like a golfer chooses
his or her club, with a calculated analysis of the matter at hand, the end goal
and the best tool for the job.
My favorite
study on the subject of kinetic 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 research
discovered that a manager’s leadership style was responsible for 30% of the
company’s bottom-line profitability! That’s far too much to ignore. Imagine how
much money and effort a company spends on new processes, efficiencies, and
cost-cutting methods in an effort to add even one percent to bottom-line
profitability, and compare that to simply inspiring managers to be more kinetic
with their leadership styles. It’s a no-brainer.
Here
are the six leadership styles Goleman uncovered among the managers he studied,
as well as a brief analysis of the effects of each style on the corporate
climate:
I.
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.
II.
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.
III.
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.
IV.
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.
V.
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.
VI.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment