Adapting leadership styles

Leading is something you can't learn in the abstract. You've got to do it. There's not always a choice as to who you'll lead, and you have to be willing to change the how. The steady slogger who wants to be alone; the creative fireball who's frequently missing; the expert with personal problems; all have contributions to make. They need different approaches to bring out their best, and you have to adapt the way you lead.

At the same time, you have to be authentic. This means being true to yourself. Up to a point, you can adapt the way you approach people, and how you ensure they progress. It's you behaving like you, but with a different slant. It can get difficult if you try to step out of your personality, in order to deal with someone who's very different from you. You feel false. You sound false. It doesn't work.

Adapting is not the same as being manipulative. Refusing to adapt for other people would be trying to force them into your mould. In effect, you would be forcing them to be phoney. To get the best out of the people you lead, you need to give them the freedom to develop in their own way.

Different situations also call for different styles of leadership. In an emergency, dictatorial insistence may well be right. If people must be moved to a place of safety, there is no time to allow them to work it out for themselves. It might even be appropriate to bodily shift them. At the other end of the continuum, a long-term project on new ground needs all the initiative it can get. A leader who barks orders in this situation will lose every step of the way. The best way forward is maximum freedom, with time and opportunities for self-development. In between, there are times for protocol, times for urgency, times for new departures, and times for long slow incubation of ideas.

Part of leadership is creating the environment for work. You can introduce different schemes to empower people. These might include more flexible allocation of roles; allowing people to choose how they work and what hours; and enabling them to work from home. You might sometimes feel that for specific parts of the project you need to hand the reins to somebody else, either because they have special expertise, or their style is better suited to the situation.

Leadership is a fluid thing. Adapting is part of it, but this may bring problems if the style that seems best for the moment goes against the grain for you. McGonagill and Associates have developed a model that shows this graphically. You have your core style, which comes naturally to you. Outside that is your zone of adaptability, where you can make adjustments, but stay within a frame of authenticity. You are still you. If you try to push your adaptation outside this, you enter the phoney zone. This is not static. You can increase your zone of adaptability, and reduce your phoney zone.

This isn't a case of a personality change. If it's in your nature to want to organise everything and make regular checks, you're not going to be able to retire to a cell and let others take over. However, you can think about what you'll gain from empowering the workforce to make more decisions.

An important first step is to look at your leadership style, and think about how it's affecting others. Your style may be excellent overall, but still need adapting. For example, you might feel you have to be the big leader at all times. Ask yourself whether this is really necessary. Look for areas where your people are succeeding, and positively encourage them to take on more. Refrain from telling them how. They have already demonstrated they can succeed, so let them do it, and your organisation will benefit.

As the leader, mistakes are more likely to be attributed to you. Some react to this by a constant quest for perfection. This is counterproductive. As perfection is impossible, you can only fail. If you think you may be a perfectionist, relax. Trying to avoid mistakes prevents people from trying out anything new, and this stops them from learning. Think of the mistakes people made when trying to fly. How many carefully crafted winged machines have crumpled on the ground within yards. If they hadn't been willing to do that, we would not now be able to fly across continents, in our thousands, every day.

Metaphorical flying goes on the same principle. If you want your people to succeed, let them make mistakes.

Another area for adaptability is relating to people. There will be times when you have to make unpleasant decisions. If you pride yourself on being responding to other people's needs, it will be difficult to accept the feelings of having done something that others won't like. You need to apply the skills you already have in showing sensitivity and relating to people. This is adapting your style to suit the circumstances, not switching from relater to autocrat.

Leadership roles inevitably bring some conflicts of interest, and a risk of conflict of personalities. Conflict is not pleasant, but sweeping it under the carpet will not kill it. It has a habit of festering under there, and then suddenly exploding into life and creating havoc. If your habit is to smooth things over too much, you may create a lull before a storm. Adapting your style can involve bringing the conflicting parties together, and finding a solution. You may be a good mediator yourself; you could ask someone else in the team, or you could appoint an external mediator. Any of these will show an ability to adapt.

Part of leadership is recognising when you are the best person for the job, and when you are not. Everything is in flux. It always has been and always will be. We need leaders to help us through and push us forwards. These leaders need to real, realistic, honest, authentic, and adaptable.

Back to Top

© Copyright 2004 Trans4mation. Reproduced with permission. Any opinions or views contained in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Training Reference.

More from Training Refence

• Management and leadership development homepage

Visit the Training Reference Directory to view supplier details for a wide range of courses, products and services. Related categories for management and leadership development include:

• Leadership development
• Management training

Source by work99

6 Leadership Styles

George Litwin and Robert Stringer of Harvard Business School studied the behavior of managers as leaders in various settings. They concluded that managers exhibit a variety of patterned behaviors that can be described generally by one or more of 6 fundamental managerial styles.

According to what I've read, managers often mistakenly assume that leadership style is a function of their personality rather than a strategic choice. As a result, they choose one style that suits their temperament when instead they should select a style that best addresses the demands of a particular situation. Of course, this is much easier said than done.

The research goes on to show that the most successful leaders have strengths in several emotional intelligence competencies including self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill. Furthermore, there are six basic styles of leadership with each making use of the key components of emotional intelligence in different combinations. Finally, the best leaders are familiar with not just one style of leadership, but rather they make use of several and have the flexibility to switch between styles as the circumstances dictate.

Why is leadership style important? Because it directly impacts the organizational climate which in turn accounts for nearly a third of financial performance. That's a large enough percentage that it warrants becoming familiar with the styles that Litwin and Stringer identified. Here they are:

The Coercive Style

From my experience in the corporate world, this is the most common style. It is the "do what I tell you to do" technique that many people rely on because it seems easy. It's also the style that junior managers or those that are frustrated will fall back on. The unfortunate result is that in most situations, coercive leadership inhibits the organization's flexibility and dampens employees' motivation. I would argue that this is a good technique for leaders and managers to use with junior personnel who simply don't have the knowledge to make informed decisions.

The Authoritative Style

I don't like the name of this style. The term has negative connotations for me and yet it is a style that is effective in many situations. An authoritative leader uses the "come with me" approach by stating the overall goal, but giving 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. As my familiarity in a particular area or with a particular business unit increases, I believe I respond well to this form of management.

The Affiliative Style

I'm not too familiar with the pure affiliative style of leading and managing, but I have seen the negatives that such a technique can have. This style believes that "people come first" and is particularly useful for building team harmony or increasing morale. The negative? Its exclusive focus on praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. I don't know about you, but having a happy-go-lucky manager who doesn't cut people that aren't pulling their weight doesn't make want to work particularly hard.

The Democratic Style

According to the research, this style's impact on organizational climate is not as high as most people might imagine. There's no question that by giving workers a voice in decisions, democratic leaders build organizational flexibility and responsibility and help generate fresh ideas. The downside is that such a style can lead to endless meetings and confused employees who feel leaderless. I think a lot of managers use this style exclusively when they first start out as they fail to realize that they're not employed to be everyone's friend, but rather to move the business forward.

The Pacesetting Style

On paper the pacesetting style sounds quite exhilarating (to me anyway) since the leader who sets high performance standards and exemplifies them himself has a very positive impact on employees who are self-motivated and highly competent. The problem is that many employees who are just at work because they need to pay their rent tend to feel overwhelmed by such a leader's demands for excellence–and to resent his tendency to take over a situation. I think this style shouldn't be confused with the "just do it" attitude that some managers exhibit without providing any direction, resources, or time.

The Coaching Style

This last 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. I'd hazard a guess and say that this style will only be effective with a small percentage of people on any given team.

The good news is that the research indicates the flexibility to switch between different styles can be learned. So what style do you use? What style does your manager use?

source by mariosalexandrou