Recent research suggests that the best managers use a range of different management styles - each in its own right at the most opportune moment. Such flexibility in acting is difficult to practice, yet it is worth it. And what's better, you can learn to do it.
If you ask any group of professionals “ What do the best leaders do? «, The answers are usually of the most varied nature. Good leaders set the strategy; motivate the team; they develop a mission; create a corporate culture. However, when asked "What should the best leaders do?" If the group is made up of experienced professionals, the answer is likely to be unanimous: the leader's main mission is to achieve results.
If the "what" is clear, the "how" is not so. The search for a magic recipe that explains what leaders can and should do to encourage their people to do their best is eternal. In recent times, this mystery has fueled a new market niche: literally thousands of "leadership experts" have developed their careers examining and training managers, all aimed at creating professionals capable of achieving challenging goals - be they strategic, financial, organizational or a combination of all three.
Still, many individuals and organizations cannot quite find the leadership they need. One reason is that until very recently, there was no valid research that accurately demonstrates leadership behaviors that are linked to positive outcomes. Leadership experts offer advice based on their experiences, conclusions, and instincts. Sometimes the key is in these tips; sometimes not.
Despite all this, new research by Hay / McBer consultancy, based on a random sample of 3,871 executives selected from a database of more than 20,000 executives worldwide, goes a long way to unraveling the mystery of effective leadership.. This research identified six distinct leadership styles, each rooted in a different component of emotional intelligence. These styles, analyzed individually, seem to have a direct and real impact on the work environment of the company, division or team and in turn on its financial results. And perhaps the most important discovery: Research indicates that the leaders who achieve the best results do not depend solely on a particular leadership style,rather, they tend to use most of these styles over a certain period - harmoniously and graduated - depending on the business situation.
The similarity between the styles and the golf clubs that a professional brings to the field can then be raised. Throughout the match, the player chooses the clubs based on the particularities of the hole. Sometimes your decision is more difficult, but in most cases it is automatic. The player senses the challenge to come, he quickly takes out the right tool and uses it with elegance. High-impact leaders work the same way.
What are the six leadership styles? Neither is a surprise to people used to the day-to-day work place. In fact, each style, by name and a brief definition, will sound like anyone who leads, is led, or, as in most of our cases, does both. Coercive Leaders demand immediate compliance. Mentoring Leaders mobilize their people toward their vision. Affiliate Leaders foster emotional ties and harmonious relationships with their people. Participatory Leaders create consensus through participation. Imitative Leaders expect excellence and autonomy from their team. And Training Leaders develop their people for the future.
Thinking a moment, surely a colleague comes to mind who uses and symbolizes one of these styles. Surely you use at least one too. What this new research provides, then, is implications for action. First, it provides a detailed explanation of how different leadership styles affect performance and results. Second, it offers clear indications to identify when and how a manager should change his style. It also highlights the importance of flexibility when using different styles. Another novelty of the study is the relationship of each style with a different component of emotional intelligence.
Measuring the Impact of Styles
More than ten years have passed since the research linked aspects of emotional intelligence with business results. The late David McClelland, a well-known Harvard University psychologist, found that leaders whose strengths centered on a base of six or more emotional intelligence competencies were more effective in their work than their peers who did not display them. For example, when you looked at the performance of division directors at an international food and beverage company, you found that among leaders who demonstrated this competency base, 87% were among the third most increased by their annual bonuses, based on in the business results obtained. What's more, its divisions achieved, on average, results 15% to 20% above budget.Rarely did managers who lacked an emotional intelligence component achieved excellent scores on annual performance reviews, and their divisions fell short of expected results, averaging 20% under budget.
Our research was aimed at broadening our vision regarding the relationship between the concepts of leadership and emotional intelligence, climate and performance. A team of McClelland colleagues led by Hay / McBer's Mary Fontaine and Ruth Jacobs studied data on thousands of managers, paying particular attention to specific behaviors and their effects on climate. How did each person motivate their direct collaborators? Did you manage change initiatives / crisis situations? It was at a later stage in our analysis that we were able to identify the different emotional intelligence capabilities that influence each of the six leadership styles. What level of self-control and social skills do you demonstrate? Does the leader show a high or low level of empathy?
The team evaluated the circle of direct influence of each manager to identify their climate. "Climate" is not amorphous terminology. Originally defined by psychologists George Litwin and Richard Stringer and later redefined by McCelland and his colleagues, it refers to six key factors that influence an organization's work environment: flexibility - the degree of freedom that employees feel they are given to innovate without bureaucracy; their sense of responsibility towards the organization; the level of standards set for them; the feeling that the feedback and evaluation they receive on their performance is appropriate and they are fairly rewarded; the clarity that the organization's people have about its mission and values; and finally, the level of commitment to a common purpose.
We found that the six leadership styles have a measurable effect on each climate variable. (For more information, see the annex "Let's Get to the Grain: The Impact of Leadership Styles on Climate Variables"). Later, when we analyze the impact of climate on financial results - sales, increased revenue, efficiency and profitability - we find a direct correlation between the two. Those leaders who used styles that positively affected the climate performed better financially than others. For this reason, we do not mean to say that the organizational climate is the only factor that influences performance. Economic conditions and the market are enormously important.Yet our analysis indicates that climate can explain a third of the results obtained, and one such impact factor is simply too powerful to ignore.
Styles in Detail
Managers use six leadership styles, yet only four of them consistently have a positive effect on climate and results. We are going to see each style of leadership in detail (For a summary see the box "The Six Styles of Leadership")
- The Coercive Style. The computer company was in crisis - its sales and revenues were falling, its shares were losing value dramatically, and shareholders were furious. The steering committee hired a new president whose reputation endorsed him as a wizard of corporate recovery. He started by narrowing down positions, selling divisions, and making the tough decisions that should have been made years ago. The company was safe, at least in the short term.
From his first day, the president created a reign of terror, terrorizing and despising his managers, bellowing every time someone was wrong in the least. The first levels of the company had been reduced to a minimum, not only because of its erratic layoffs but also because of leaks. The president's direct associates, frightened by his tendency to "kill the messenger", not only stopped transmitting the negative news but also all the news of the company. Morale had never been lower - a fact that was reflected in a decline in business shortly after the recovery. Finally the steering committee fired the president.
It is easy to understand why of all leadership styles, coercive is the least effective in most situations. Let's consider how style affects the climate of the organization. Flexibility is the first to suffer. Decision-making from above means that new ideas never come to light. People feel that they are not respected; they ask: "Why am I going to make suggestions if in the end they are going to pass on my ideas?" At the same time, the sense of responsibility disappears: people being unable to act on their own initiative, they do not feel "owners" of their work and do not perceive that their performance depends on themselves. People can resent this fact so much that they adopt the attitude "I'm not going to help this bastard."
Coercive leadership also has negative effects on the reward system. Most well-performing workers are motivated by more than money - they seek satisfaction from a job well done. Coercive style corrodes such pride. Finally the style undoes one of the basic tools of the leader: motivate people by showing them how their work fits into the great mission that everyone in the organization shares. The lack of a vision is a loss of clarity and commitment and leaves people outside their own work, wondering "What does all this matter?"
Given the impact of the coercive style, one can assume that it should never be used. Our research, however, uncovered a few situations where enforcement worked wonderfully. Consider the case of a division president who was hired to change the direction of a food company that was losing money. His first action was to tear down the assembly hall of the executive committee. For this man, the hall - with its large marble table resembling a spaceship command center - was a symbol of the tradition of formality that was paralyzing the company. The destruction of the room, and the subsequent move to a smaller, more informal location, sent a clear message, and the culture of the division rapidly changed accordingly.
All that being said, the coercive style should be used with extreme caution and in the few situations where it is absolutely necessary, such as during a recovery or when a hostile buy is on the horizon. In these cases, the coercive style can help to break harmful customs for the business and produce a shock that forces people to work in another way. It is always appropriate during true emergencies, such as after an earthquake or fire. And it can be true for problem employees, with whom everything else has already failed. However, if a leader depends solely on this style or continues to use it after the urgency has passed, in the long run the impact of his lack of sensitivity on the morale and feelings of his team will be disastrous.
- The Orientative Style. Tom was vice president of marketing for a national pizza restaurant chain that has not quite taken off. To be sure, the company's poor performance was a great concern to the more experienced managers, yet they did not know where to start. Every Monday they met to go over sales, struggling to come up with new solutions to their problems. For Tom, the approach made no sense. “We are always trying to find out why sales were low last week. We had the whole company looking back instead of thinking about what to do tomorrow. "
Tom saw an opportunity to change the way people think in a strategy meeting outside of the office. There, the conversation began with hackneyed generalities: The company had to increase shareholder value and increase return on assets. Tom believed that these ideas did not have the power of impact necessary to inspire a restaurant manager to be innovative or to do his job excellently.
So Tom made a drastic decision. Midway through the meeting, he passionately pleaded with his colleagues to think for a moment from the point of view of his clients. "Customers want facilities" - he said. The company was not in the restaurant business but was a distribution company for a high-quality and easily accessible product, pizza. This idea - and nothing else - should drive everything the company did.
With his great enthusiasm and clear vision - the pillars of the guiding style - Tom filled the leadership void that existed in the company. In fact, his concept became the basis for the new mission. Yet this groundbreaking vision was just the beginning. Tom made sure that the mission was incorporated into the company's strategic planning process to set it as the foundation for the company's growth. He also made sure the vision was explained in such a way that local restaurant managers understood that they were the linchpin in the success of the business and had the freedom to discover new ways to distribute pizza.
The changes happened quickly. Within weeks, many local managers began guaranteeing new and faster ways to deliver. And what is even better, they began to behave like entrepreneurs, finding interesting places to open new stores: kiosks on the corners of central streets and in bus and train stations, even from trolleys in airports and hotel lobbies.
Tom's success was no accident. Our research indicates that of the six leadership styles, the orientation is the most effective, improving all climate variables. For example clarity. The guiding leader is a visionary; motivate people by clarifying how their work fits into the bigger picture of the organization. People who work for leaders with this style understand that their work matters and they know why. Guiding leadership also maximizes commitment to the organization's goals and strategy.
By framing individual tasks within a grand vision, the Mentor Leader defines the standards that make their vision work. When you give feedback on performance - both positive and negative - you determine whether the person's performance is helping to achieve the vision. The standards of success are clear to everyone, as are the rewards. Finally, consider the impact of this style on flexibility. A guiding leader describes his end point, but generally leaves people a lot of leeway to figure out their own path. Mentoring leaders give their people the freedom to innovate, experiment, and take calculated risks.
Given its positive impact, the guiding style works well in almost any situation. It is particularly effective when the business is moving aimlessly. A guiding figure looks to a new horizon and sells a refreshing long-term vision to her team.
The guiding style, powerful as it is, doesn't work in all situations. The approach fails, for example, when the leader works with a team of experts or collaterals with more experience than himself; They may perceive the leader as cocky or out of the loop. Another limitation: if a manager who tries to be a guide goes overboard and acts with too much prominence, he can destroy the egalitarian spirit necessary in an effective team. Even with these dangers, leaders would be wise to jump into the guiding style more often. It doesn't necessarily secure an eagle, but it certainly helps for a long drive.
- The Affiliative Style. If the coercive leader forces you to "do what I say", and the guidance asks "come with me," the affiliative leader says "people come first." This leadership style revolves around people - those who employ it value individuals and their emotions above tasks and goals. The affiliative leader strives to make his employees happy and the relationship between them is harmonious. Manages through the development of affective ties and then collect the results of this approach, mainly strong loyalty. Style also has a very positive effect on communication. People who are comfortable with each other talk a lot. They share ideas and inspiration.
Style increases flexibility; Friends trust each other, allowing habits of innovation and risk-taking to develop. Flexibility also increases because the affiliative leader, like a parent adjusting the house rules for a child growing up, does not impose unnecessary restrictions on how the employee is to do his or her job. The leader gives people the freedom to do their job in the way that seems most effective to each.
Regarding recognition and reward for a job well done, the affiliative leader generously offers positive feedback. This type of feedback has a special strength at work because it is unusual: apart from the annual review, most people do not usually receive feedback on their day-to-day efforts, or in any case, they receive only negative feedback. All of this makes the positive words of the affiliative leader very motivating. Finally, affiliative leaders are masters of the art of cultivating a sense of belonging. They tend, for example, to invite someone from their team to a meal or drink - one by one - to see how they are doing, or they bring a cake to celebrate the success of the group. They are natural relationship developers.
Joe Torre, the soul of the New York Yankees is a classic example of an affiliative leader. During the 1999 World Series final, Torre took great care of the minds of his players as they endured the pressure of the last few games. Throughout the season, he took a special interest in praising Scott Brosius, whose father had passed away shortly before, to keep him motivated even in that bad time. At the party after the last game, Torre especially sought out Paul O'Neill. Although O'Neill had received the news of his father's death the same morning, O'Neill decided to play in this key game - and eventually broke down in tears. Torre took a moment to acknowledge the personal effort O'Neill had put in, calling him a "warrior."Torre also took advantage of the moment of the victory celebration to specifically recognize two players whose return to the team the following year was threatened by problems with their contracts. By doing that, he sent a clear message to the team and the club owner that he valued these players - too much to lose.
In addition to caring for the emotions of his people, an affiliative leader can also attend to his own emotional needs openly. The year Torre's brother was near death waiting for a heart transplant, he shared his concerns with his players. He also spoke simply with the team about treating his prostate cancer.
The generally positive impact that the affiliative style has makes it a good all-rounder approach, however leaders should employ it particularly when trying to foster team harmony, boost morale, improve communication, or build more trust. For example, a manager in our study was hired to replace another team leader who had been unscrupulous. The previous leader had appropriated the success of the work of his team members and had tried to create conflict between them. Their efforts ended in failure, but they left the team suspicious and tired. The new director managed to remedy the situation by revealing her emotions, creating an honest image for her team and reestablishing ties between its members. Some months later,his leadership had created a new sense of commitment and energy.
Despite its benefits, the affiliative style should not be used in a unique way. Your praise-based approach can allow poor performance to go uncorrected; Employees may perceive that mediocrity is tolerated. Since affiliative leaders rarely offer constructive advice for improvement, employees need to figure out how to do it themselves. When people need clear guidelines to face new challenges, the affiliative style leaves them without a rudder. Clearly, relying too much on this style can lead a group to failure. Perhaps this is why many affiliative leaders, like Torre, use this style in conjunction with the orientative style. Mentoring leaders define a vision, set standards, and let people know how their work is contributing to the group's goals.If you alternate with a nurturing and nurturing approach as the affiliative leader, it is a potent combination.
- The Participative Style. Sister Mary runs a network of Catholic schools in a large city. One of the schools - the only private school in a poor neighborhood - had been losing money for years and the archbishopric could no longer bear the expense of keeping it open. When Sister Mary was finally ordered to close it, she did more than just close the doors. She called a meeting of all the teachers and staff of the school and explained the details of the financial crisis - it was the first time that the people of the school were included in the more "business" part of the institution. She asked them for suggestions on ways to keep the school open and to manage its closure, if necessary. Sister Mary spent much of her time just listening.
He did the same at subsequent parent and community meetings and during a series of meetings for teachers and school staff. After two months of meetings, the consensus was clear: the school would have to close. A plan was made to take the students to other colleges in the system.
The end result was no different than if Sister Mary had closed the school the same day she received the news. But by allowing the people who made up the college to come to the decision collectively, Sister Mary avoided facing the reproaches that would have accompanied such communication. People regretted the loss of the school, but at the same time understood its causes. Hardly anyone had objections.
Compare this with the experiences of a priest in our research who led another Catholic school. He also received orders to close it. And so he did - by decree. The result was a disaster: parents filed lawsuits, teachers and parents went on strike, and local newspapers produced editorials attacking their decision. It took a year to resolve the disputes before he was finally able to close the school.
Sister Mary is an example of the participatory style in action - and its benefits. By spending time getting ideas and support from people, a leader builds trust, respect, and commitment. By giving employees a voice in decisions that affect their goals and the way they do their jobs, the participatory leader increases flexibility and accountability. By listening to employee concerns, the participatory leader learns what needs to be done to keep morale high. Finally, since they have a vote in setting their goals and the parameters to measure their success, people who work in a participatory environment tend to be more realistic about what they can and cannot do.
Despite this, the participatory style has its drawbacks, and therefore does not have as high an impact on the climate as the other styles. One of the most negative consequences can be endless meetings where ideas are allowed to settle, consensus resists, and the only visible result is the scheduling of more meetings. Some participatory leaders use this style to avoid making crucial decisions, in the hope that by giving the subject enough thought it will eventually become clear. In reality, your people end up feeling confused and missing a leader. Such an approach may even end up worsening conflicts.
When does this style work best? This approach is best when the leader also does not know the best way to proceed and needs the ideas and guidance of capable employees. And even if the leader has a clear vision, the participatory style is effective in generating new ideas that help bring the vision to life.
The participatory style, unsurprisingly, makes much less sense when employees are not trained or do not have enough information to provide valid opinions. It goes without saying that in times of crisis they are not adequate to create consensus. Take for example the case of a President whose computer company was being threatened by serious changes in the market. He always sought consensus to define the next steps. As competitors robbed him of his customers and customer needs changed, he continued to organize committees to analyze the situation. When the market took a sharp turn due to new technology, he was paralyzed. The Steering Committee replaced him before he could mount another task force to consider the situation.The new president displayed the guiding style for the first few months, occasionally using the participatory and affiliative styles.
- The Imitative Style. Like the coercive style, the imitative style is part of the leader's repertoire, although its use should be moderated. We did not expect to reach this conclusion when we began our investigation. Deep down, the foundations of the imitative style seem admirable. The leader sets extremely high performance standards and exemplifies them. His obsession is to do everything better and faster, and he demands that everyone around him meet these criteria. He quickly identifies people with low levels of performance and demands more of them. If they don't meet your expectations, you replace them with more capable people. At first glance, it seems that such an approach would improve results, but it does not.
In fact, the imitative style destroys the climate of a team. Many employees are overwhelmed by the leader's demands for excellence, and their morale drops. The work rules should be clear to the leader, but he does not explain them clearly, but rather expects people to know what to do and even thinks "if I have to tell you, you are not the right person for this job." Work is not a matter of trying your best to achieve goals, it becomes an exercise in guessing what the leader wants. At the same time, people feel that the leader does not trust them to do their work freely or to take initiatives of their own. Flexibility and responsibility disappear,and work becomes a series of highly focused and routine tasks that bore employees.
Regarding the rewards, the imitative leader does not give feedback on the work, but instead takes the reins when it seems that something is wrong. And if the leader is absent, people feel they have "lost their way" as they are used to working alongside an expert who sets the standards. Eventually, commitment evaporates under the regime of an imitative leader because people do not feel as if they are working toward a common goal.
As an example of the imitative style, we have the case of Sam, a biochemist in the R&D area of a large pharmaceutical company. His high technical level made Sam a star very quickly: everyone came to him for help. He was quickly promoted to team leader for the development of a new product. The other scientists who made up the team were as competent and motivated as Sam. His approach as a team leader was to offer himself as an example of how to do the work of his field with a high level of demand under heavy time pressure, giving his special support when needed. His team completed their assignment in record time.
But then Sam was given a new responsibility: He was promoted to R&D director for his entire division. As his tasks multiplied, he had to create a vision, coordinate different projects, delegate more responsibilities and help the development of others, and Sam began to fail. He did not trust the abilities of his subordinates, and began to practice "micromanagement": the details of the job became his obsession and he personally took care of the work of people whose performance did not meet his expectations. Rather than relying on their guidance and development process to improve, Sam found himself working nights and weekends after taking over a research project that was going awry. Finally, at the suggestion of your own boss, and for your peace of mind,returned to his previous position as head of the development team.
Although Sam failed, the imitative style doesn't always end in disaster. The approach works well when all employees are motivated, highly competent, and / or need little direction and coordination. For example, it can work for team leaders made up of highly trained and motivated professionals, such as R&D groups or lawyers. And when it comes to leading a talented team, the imitative style does just this: it gets the job done on or before the deadline. Despite this, like all leadership styles, the imitative style should never be used exclusively.
- The Empowering Style. A product unit in a global company in the technology sector had seen its sales fall from a price that was twice that of the competition to a price of half. So Lawrence, the director of the production division, decided to close the unit and reassign its people and products. When James, the manager of the affected unit found out, he decided to bypass his boss and talk to the president.
What did Lawrence do? Rather than scold James, he sat him down and told him not only about his decision to close the division but also about James' future. He explained how moving to another division would help him develop new skills, make him a better leader, and teach him more about the Company's business.
In the end, Lawrence behaved more like a counselor than a traditional boss. He listened to James about his concerns and Lawrence let him know his. He explained that for him, James had stuck in his current position, it was after all all the experience he had in the company. Lawrence expressed his confidence that James would develop into his new role.
Then the conversation turned to more practical topics. James had not yet met with the president, the meeting that had unilaterally demanded to know the plan to close his division. With this in mind, and also with the awareness that the president had given his unconditional support to the closure of the unit, Lawrence took the opportunity to give James some clues for his presentation "you don't have a meeting with the president very often," He said, "Let's make sure you impress him." He advised James not to talk about his own case but about the business unit. "If it seems to him that you are looking for laurels, he will throw you out faster than you could have left on foot" and he encouraged him to write his ideas, which the president would always appreciate.
Why did Lawrence decide to "coach James instead of blaming him for his behavior"? “James is a good person, very talented and with a promising future,” he explained, “and I don't want this to hurt his career. I want him to stay with the company, I want him to work, I want him to learn, I want him to benefit from this experience and grow. Making a mistake once doesn't mean he's terrible. "
Lawrence's actions represent a clear example of an enabling style. Training leaders help employees identify their strengths and weaknesses and link them to their personal and career expectations. They encourage their employees to set long-term goals to develop and help them create a plan to achieve them. To carry out these plans, they establish agreements with their employees regarding their role and responsibilities, and give a lot of guidance and feedback. Training leaders are the best at delegating, giving their employees challenging tasks, even knowing that the tasks will not get done quickly. That is, training leaders are willing to tolerate greater short-term problems when it means a lasting learning experience.
Of the six styles, our research showed that the enabling style is used less frequently than all the others. Many leaders told us that they did not have time in a highly demanding market to do such a time consuming and tedious task as teaching others and helping them grow. However, starting from the first session, it requires little or no extra time. Leaders who ignore this style are missing an opportunity to use a very powerful tool: its impact on climate and performance is entirely positive.
It must be recognized that there is a paradox between the positive effect that training or "coaching" has on business results, given that training is mainly focused on personal development, not on tasks directly linked to work. Still, coaching improves results. His reason: it requires constant dialogue, and dialogue of this type affects all climate variables positively. For example, flexibility. When an employee is aware that his boss is watching him and that he cares what he does, he feels free to experiment.
Anyway, you know that you will receive immediate and constructive feedback. In the same way, the continuous dialogue of "coaching" ensures that people know what is expected of them and how their work contributes to the vision or strategy of the company. Therefore, it affects responsibility and clarity. In terms of commitment, training also helps to promote it, because its implicit message is "I believe in you, I am betting on you, and I expect the best from you." It is no accident that employees indulge in new challenges in body and soul.
The enabling style works in many business situations, but may be most effective when people on the team are "ready." For example, the training style works especially well when employees are already aware of their weaknesses and want to improve their performance. Also, the style works well when employees realize the relationship between learning and their own progress. In short, it works best with employees who want to be helped to develop.
In contrast, the enabling style does not make much sense when employees, for whatever reason, resist learning or changing the way they act. And it's a disaster if the leader lacks the experience and knowledge to help employees. It is a fact that many managers are not comfortable with coaching or are simply not capable of such a relationship, especially when it comes to giving continuous feedback on performance to motivate, rather than terrify or create apathy. Some companies have realized the positive impact this style has and are trying to make it a corporate competition. In other companies, a significant part of the annual bonus for managers is linked to the development they get from their employees.Yet few organizations take full advantage of this leadership style. Although training doesn't "think about results," it achieves them.
Leaders Need Many Styles
Many studies, including ours, have shown that the more styles the leader practices, the better. Leaders who have mastered four or more styles - especially the orientation, participatory, affiliative, and empowering styles - have the best climate and the best performance as measured by business results. Above all, the most effective leaders are able to change styles flexibly and when needed. Although it may seem impossible, we saw it more often than we expected; both in large corporations and in small newly created companies, and both in experienced leaders, able to explain exactly how and why they use different styles, as in entrepreneurs who claimed to lead by instinct.
These leaders do not automatically adapt their leadership styles to the situation using a checklist; they work in a much more fluid way. They have a special sensitivity for the way their actions influence other people and they subtly adjust their style to achieve the best results. He is a leader who, for example, can grasp, as soon as he starts a conversation, that a talented person who nevertheless does not achieve the set performance levels, is demoralized by his relationship with an authoritarian and strict boss. You quickly understand that this person simply needs to know how their work counts and thus motivates them by asking what their expectations are and looking for ways to make their work more challenging. But he also knows how to identify when to give this person an ultimatum: either improve or leave.
As an example of fluid leadership in action, consider Joan, the CEO of a major division in a food and beverage company. Joan was suggested to her position at a time of crisis for the division. You hadn't met your profit targets for the past six years; Last year, in fact, it was down by $ 50 million. Top managers were totally unmotivated; the atmosphere was one of mistrust and resentment. The objective that Joan set was clear: to turn the situation around the division.
Joan did so by demonstrating an amazing ability to switch from one style to another. From the beginning, she realized that she had very little time to demonstrate that she was capable of leading successfully and creating an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. He was also aware that he urgently needed accurate information about what was not working, so he made listening to key people in the division his first task.
During his first week on the job he had lunches and dinners with each member of the management team. What Joan was looking for was each one's point of view on the current situation. However, he was not interested in the diagnosis that each one made, but rather sought to know each manager on a more personal level. To do this, Joan used the affiliative style: she asked them about their lives, wishes and aspirations.
She also took on the role of a "coach," trying to identify how she could help her team members achieve what they wanted in their careers. For example, a manager whom everyone called an individualist and not a "team player" confessed her concerns. He looked like a good team member, but was constantly plagued with complaints. Joan perceived that he was talented and was a person who added a lot of value to the company, so she reached an agreement with him to tell him (privately) when his actions were preventing others from seeing him as another player on the team.
After these individual conversations, he called a three-day meeting outside of the office environment. Her goal was to encourage teamwork, so that everyone felt responsible for all problems that might arise in the business. His initial approach to the meeting was democratic. He encouraged everyone to express their frustrations and complaints openly.
The next day, Joan asked the group to deal with specific problems: each person made three concrete proposals for actions to improve the situation. As Joan grouped the suggestions, a consensus emerged on the business priorities, cost reduction. Since it was the group that came up with the specific action plans, Joan got the commitment of its members.
With this vision firmly defined, Joan assumed the guiding style, and assigned monitoring areas to each of the managers and held them accountable for their compliance. For example, it had been lowering prices without succeeding in increasing its volume. An obvious solution was to increase prices, but the previous sales manager hadn't acted and the problem had gotten worse. Now the new sales manager had the responsibility of adjusting the prices so that the problem was resolved.
Over the next several months, Joan mainly used the orientation style. She continued to reinforce the new vision of the group, in a way that reminded each member of the team how their role was essential to achieve the objectives. And, especially during the first weeks of the implementation of the plan, Joan saw that the real urgency of the crisis that the division was experiencing justified the assumption of the coercive style when some of the team failed to fulfill their responsibilities. She said, “I had to get tough on the follow-up and make sure that what we had decided was actually carried out. It took discipline and concentration. "
And the results? All climate variables improved. People began to innovate. They were in the habit of commenting on the division's vision and its commitment to clear new goals. The final test of Joan's fluency in his use of leadership styles was evident in the bottom line: After just six months, his division exceeded its profit targets for the year by 5 million.
How to Expand Your Range of Styles
Few leaders, of course, have all six styles in their repertoire, and fewer still know when and how to use them. In fact, as we have presented our research in different organizations, the most common response has been. "But, I only have two of the six!" and, 'I can't use all these styles. It wouldn't be human.
This feeling is understandable, and in some cases the antidote is straightforward. The leader can create teams whose members demonstrate the styles that he lacks. We see for example a Production Director. He was successful managing a network of factories located around the world using primarily the affiliative style. He was constantly traveling, meeting with factory managers, helping them with their problems, and conveying his trust in them as people. As for the realization of the division's strategy - extremely effective, it was entrusted to a close collaborator who is a technology expert. On the other hand, he delegated another colleague, whose strength was the guiding style, for the transmission of performance standards.He also had an imitative person on his team who always accompanied him on his factory visits.
Another approach, and the one I recommend, is for leaders to broaden the range of styles they use. Therefore, leaders must first understand the emotional intelligence competencies that form the basis for the leadership styles they lack. They can then make real efforts to increase the degree to which they use them.
For example, an affiliative leader can identify his strengths in three emotional intelligence competencies: empathy, relationship building, and communication. Empathy - intuiting how people are feeling at a given moment - enables the affiliative leader to respond to her employees in a way that fits the person's emotions and thereby fosters a richer relationship. The affiliative leader also demonstrates a natural gift for developing new relationships, meeting other people, and nurturing friendship. Finally, an excellent affiliative leader masters the art of interpersonal communication, particularly the ability to say or do the right thing at the right time.
So if you are an imitative leader and would like to know how to use the affiliative style more often, you should improve your level of empathy and, perhaps, your ability to develop relationships or communicate effectively. Another example, a mentor leader who wants to develop the participatory style may have to work on their collaboration and communication skills. These tips for adding capabilities seem simplistic - "Go ahead, change yourself" - yet developing emotional intelligence is more than possible with practice. (For more tips on how to improve emotional intelligence, see "Grow Your Emotional Intelligence.")
More Science, Less Art
Like being a parent, leadership is never going to be an exact science. However, it should never be seen as a mystery to the people who exercise it. In recent years, research has helped parents better understand the genetic, sociological and behavioral components that affect their 'job performance'. Our fresh new research can also give leaders a clearer "snapshot" of the characteristics needed to lead effectively. And what may be even more important, you can tell them how to acquire them.
The business environment is highly changeable, and a leader has to respond appropriately. Hour by hour, day by day, week by week, managers have to adjust their leadership styles like a true professional - using the right style at the right time and in the right measure. Your reward will be the results.
