Identifying Leadership Styles

The twenty-first century has revealed a complex and diverse organizational climate that is resistant to narrow and simplistic leadership approaches. A narrow application of leadership theory can polarize followers and stagnate an organization because it does not adequately interact with a broad range of organizational factors at play in the organization. A productive leader in this environment must be open to and engage, as well as embrace, many different leadership styles as are brought forth in the different leadership theories. We can answer the question, of how should we decide which leadership approach to use when, by identifying four leadership styles:
1. Telling/Directing Leader — a leader provides detailed instruction and closely coaches the follower.

2. Selling/Coaching Leader — a leader provides explanations and principles, engages the follower in a discussion of the work, and coaches as needed.

3. Facilitating/Counseling Leader — the leader assists the follower with goal clarification and ideas, then coaches as needed

4. Delegating Leader — the goal is clarified and the work turned over to the follower.

We can further assert that determining the level of follower readiness will help indicate which style will be most effective. For instance:
* People who are both unable and either unwilling or too insecure to take responsibility to do something. They are neither competent nor confident. These need clear and specific directions. So the appropriate style is Telling/Directing.
* People who are having less skill level, but willing to do necessary job task and are motivated but currently lack the appropriate skills need both high-task and high-relationship leadership or Selling/Coaching.
* People who are able but unwilling or too apprehensive to do what the leader wants need low-task and high-relationship or Facilitating/Counseling.
* People who are both able and willing to take responsibility and do what is asked of them require low-task and low-relationship style or Delegating.

Tannenbaum, Robert & Schmidt, Warren. HOW TO CHOOSE A LEADERSHIP PATTERN. (2008) Boston MA: Harvard Business Review

Hersey, Paul & Blanchard, Kenneth H. & Johnson, Dewey E. (2005). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources (8th Edition). Prentice Hall

Engaging The Appropriate Leadership Style

One thing I have learned in this process is that leadership requires different approaches, methods, skills and tasks for different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Certainly various approaches, skills and tasks are contingent upon the present situation the leader experiences. But, understanding this legitimate need for situational leadership should never be used as a motive or excuse to mistreat or casually discard other people. Today church organizations must exist to serve, and that not only includes their members, but also their community and all followers in general. Any organization today that doesn’t get this essential point may ultimately find themselves wondering aimlessly in the forest of extraneous ineffectiveness. The ability to engage multiple theoretical approaches on a situational basis will help us to lead in a way that will enrich all our lives. Gastil addresses this and recommends we pay attention to three things: 1) Ownership: Problems and issues need to become a responsibility of all with proper chances for people to share and participate. 2) Learning: An emphasis on learning and development is necessary so that people can share, understand and contribute to what’s going on. 3) Sharing: Open, respectful and informed interaction is essential. Leaders must insure an atmosphere conducive to genuine growth if the organization is to be healthy and productive. Engaging the appropriate leadership style in each situation will go a long way in accomplishing this.


Gastil, J. (1997). A definition and illustration of democratic leadership in K. Grint (ed.) Leadership, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Applying a Historical Perspective

There are many ideas afloat in the arena of effective leadership. In addressing the question of why it is important to know all the theories of leadership, a historical perspective must be applied. In the past, most researchers believed in a “one best way” or universal approach to leadership. Many also held the opinion that leaders were those who simply had the “right stuff” to lead others. Of course, one hundred years ago many assumed that great leaders were simply “born” to lead and the “right stuff” was unavailable to others! As other researchers studied farther, a different model was developed that viewed good leadership as contingent upon the given situation or environment. In other words, leaders are “made" as opposed to “born”. Widely varying circumstances typically require different qualities of leadership. These became known as contingency theories. It is important to undergird each theory with the bedrock of values. There is always a best way to treat people under any circumstance. That is with respect, fairness and dignity. The fact of the matter is organizations are changing at such a pace that the leader can ill afford to lock down on one theory or leadership approach. If we are to be effective in this diverse organizational climate, we must have the theoretical understanding to be adaptable while maintaining a sure foundation in regards to values.

Blake, R. and Mouton, J.S., (1969) Building a Dynamic Corporation Through Grid Organizational Development. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H., (1977) The Management of Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.), Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall

What's Next?

If we are to affect real change we must keep moving forward. John Kotter offers a “What’s next” by laying out a process to implementing change in an organization. He places an emphasis on the processes by encouraging eight steps to be followed by the change agent. The process begins with developing a desire for change by examining the market and competitive realities and identifying and discussing potential crises, or major opportunities. Next, the change agent would create a guiding coalition by putting together a group with enough power to lead the change and encouraging the group to work together like a team. This coalition would develop a vision and strategy to help direct the change effort. The coalition would also communicate the change vision by using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies and model the behavior expected of stake holders. The change agent would then empower broad-based action by changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision and encouraging risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions. Next it is important to generating short-term wins by visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible. These wins lead to consolidating gains and producing more change by reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents. The last step is important as the change agent must work to anchor new approaches in the culture by creating better performance through relational behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective management and developing means to ensure leadership development and succession.

References:
Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press

Assessing The Political Climate

It seems as though every time I watch the news, in the United States, the emphasis is politics. This caused me to wonder; What role does organizational politics play in leading organizational change? There are two schools of thought. First, the idea that organizational change is best accommodated by working to lessen politics in the organization. This philosophy is embraced by Easterby-Smith and Araujo as they argue: that “good learning takes place in a climate of openness where political behavior is minimized”. I am not sure that this is not an idealistic view that borders on being unrealistic. The truth is, no matter how we feel about it, politics are a part of every organizational structure. A second school of thought is that organizations are inherently political and that it is important to recognize this. Bolman and Deal contend that organizations can be seen as coalitions of various individuals and interest groups and assert that: “Organizational goals, structure and policies emerge from an ongoing process of bargaining and negotiation among major interest groups”. Perhaps we could better facilitate change by looking to the political nature of structures within the organization and implementing action steps that are more effective in that particular political climate. This viewpoint would hold that it would be better to incorporate politics into organizational learning, rather than to eradicate it. What do you think?

References:

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Pg. 175)

Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. London: Sage. (Pg. 13)

Dealing With Resistance To Change

Usually, when change is in the air there is resistance to that change. In an earlier post, I spoke of Lewin's model of change that is found in his Unfreeze-change-refreeze theory. Lewin encourages leaders to beware of two kinds of resistance. They are resistance that comes from social habit or custom and group oriented resistance based on created values. The leaders challenge is to break the habits, challenge the interests or `unfreeze' the customs of the grouping order to overcome the forces of resistance. Lewin's change management model is linked to force field analysis. He considered that, to achieve change effectively, it is necessary to look at all the options for moving from the existing present to a desired future state, and then to evaluate the possibilities of each and decide on the best one, rather than just aiming for the desired goal and taking the straightest and easiest route to it. He identified two questions to ask when seeking to make changes within the organization. First, the change agent would ask: Why does a process continue at its current level under the present circumstances? Secondly, the one desiring to overcome resistance would ask: What conditions would change these circumstances? These questions will help “unfreeze” the resistance in the group dynamic. As leaders, we can effectively deal with resistance to change by asking the right questions.



References:

Cartwright, Dorwin. (1963) Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock Publications

Hartley, E. L. & Newcomb, T. M. (1947) Group decision and social change: Readings in social psychology. New York, NY: Holt

Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics, New York: Harper and Row

When Change Is Unavoidable

What does a leader do when change is unavoidable? John Kotter in his book Leading Change lays out a process to implementing change in an organization. He places an emphasis on the processes by encouraging several steps to be followed by the leader. The process begins with developing a desire for change by examining the market and competitive realities and identifying and discussing potential crises, or major opportunities. Next, the leader would create a guiding coalition by putting together a group with enough power to lead the change and encouraging the group to work together like a team. This coalition would develop a vision and strategy to help direct the change effort. The coalition would also communicate the change vision by using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies and model the behavior expected of followers. The leader would then empower broad-based action by changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision and encourage risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions. Next it is important to generating short-term wins by visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible. These wins lead to consolidating gains and producing more change by reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents. The last step is important as the leader must work to anchor new approaches in the culture by creating better performance through productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective management. These steps should be effective in developing means to ensure leadership development and succession in the organization.

Reference:

Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press

The Leader As An Interventionist

Sometimes, as leaders, we are called upon to be interventionists. In his Intervention Theory and Method, Argyris asserts that an interventionist has three primary tasks: to generate valid information, to foster free choice, and to achieve internal commitment. Accomplishing these necessitates an understanding that people have mental maps with regard to how to act in situations. This involves the way they plan, implement and review their actions. His assertion is that it is these maps that guide people’s actions rather than the theories they espouse. Argyris suggest that two theories of action are involved. He makes a distinction between those theories that are implicit in what we do as practitioners, and those on which we call to speak of our actions to others. The former can be described as theories-in-use. They govern actual behavior and tend to be unspoken structures. The words we use to convey what we do can then be called espoused theory. When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use. Making this distinction allows us as interventionists to better anticipate behavior and reaction to change.

References:

Argyris, C. (1980). Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. San Diego CA: Academic Press.

Argyris, C. (1994). Knowledge for Action. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley