| During my Year-Long Guidance Program in 2013,
topics like LeadStyle are designed as a part of a
Leadership University Certificate Program for Emerging
Leaders. Each of these topics will have a free
introductory session, as well as 4 discovery sessions,
approximately 40 minutes in length. To register for
the Year-Long Program and get all the discovery
sessions at a discounted fee,
click here. |
Leadership Styles @F-L-O-W is designed to introduce leadership
style issues into the mix with role design, and organizational
structure.
The Elements of Leadership Style are critical to provide
leaders and role designers with accurate descriptions of
the type of behavior that is likely to be motivated by the
leader’s inborn attributes.
We know that leadership style is a heavy predictor of
organizational climate and that the path to results, as
well as well-being goes through leadership style.
It’s also clear from coaching leaders for more than 2
decades that leadership style issues govern how followers
perceive leaders, and in our current approach @F-L-O-W,
how leaders can both be scaffolded in this process where
their motivated styles are going to create problems for
the organizations and the people in them, as well as how
to teach leaders to look for and appreciate/scaffold these
natural emerging styles, which are more than likely
directly correlated to inborn traits.
| "Management styles are characteristic ways of
making decisions and relating to subordinates.
Management styles can be categorized into two main
contrasting styles, autocratic and permissive.
Management styles are also divided in the main
categories of autocratic, paternalistic, and
democratic. This idea was further developed by Robert
Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1958, 1973), who
argued that the style of leadership is dependent upon
the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should
exercise a range of management styles and should
deploy them as appropriate." – Wiki |
In recent times, we have discovered that leadership styles are
not as plastic and situational as people think, or have
thought and due to inborn attributes, we grow to prefer
particular kinds of engagement styles because they work for
us…even though a case could be made that they don’t work for
every situation.
When we begin to tie motivational systems which are present in
leadership engagement, particular styles emerge which under
Pareto distribution make up a network of effects that are
interconnected through power law distribution, where a few
become MORE important and influential, and a larger number
become less important, although available in some cases, but
more than likely not as dense in the ways in which they are
used (quality) and as frequent (quantity).
Each situation has a style of combination of styles which are
more likely to be matched. However, leaders because of who they
are, are not always able to call up these styles, like one
would ask for a particular club in a golf bag in a particular
scenario.
There are several things that become important:
1) Who are you, in relation to your inherent styles?
2) What styles are called for in larger quantities to create
fit in your role?
3) Which styles are most likely to fit into particular
situations better than others.
4) How do you know how to recognize the styles and the need
for styles in particular situations?
6) When is using a particular style going to create a lot of
leverage for a little bit of investment?
7) Why are leadership styles important to engagement?
This inquiry is what Leadership Engagement, as it relates to
styles of leadership is about.
Categories of Managerial Leadership Styles have emerged
through various systems and research vehicles over time and
Leadership Engagement Styles @F-L-O-W is no different. In
fact, by standing on the shoulders of many proven systems, we
can take advantage of the various opportunities and resilience
created when fit between style and situation are closely
aligned.
6 Leadership Styles were listed by the research from David
McClelland over a period of more than 50 years, both in
motivation and in leadership.
|
Visionary. This
style is most appropriate when an organization needs a
new direction. Its goal is to move people towards a
new set of shared dreams. “Visionary leaders
articulate where a group is going, but not how it will
get there – setting people free to innovate,
experiment, take calculated risks,” write Mr. Goleman
and his coauthors.
Coaching. This
one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals,
showing them how to improve their performance, and
helping to connect their goals to the goals of the
organization. Coaching works best, Mr. Goleman writes,
“with employees who show initiative and want more
professional development.” But it can backfire if it’s
perceived as “micromanaging” an employee, and
undermines his or her self-confidence.
Affiliative. This
style emphasizes the importance of team work, and
creates harmony in a group by connecting people to
each other. Mr. Goleman argues this approach is
particularly valuable “when trying to heighten team
harmony, increase morale, improve communication or
repair broken trust in an organization.” But he warns
against using it alone, since its emphasis on group
praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected.
“Employees may perceive,” he writes, “that mediocrity
is tolerated.”
Democratic. This
style draws on people’s knowledge and skills, and
creates a group commitment to the resulting goals. It
works best when the direction the organization should
take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the
collective wisdom of the group. Mr. Goleman warns that
this consensus-building approach can be disastrous in
times of crisis, when urgent events demand quick
decisions.
Pacesetting. In
this style, the leader sets high standards for
performance. He or she is “obsessive about doing
things better and faster, and asks the same of
everyone.” But Mr. Goleman warns this style should be
used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and
make people feel as if they are failing. “Our data
shows that, more often than not, pacesetting poisons
the climate,” he writes.
Commanding. This
is classic model of “military” style leadership –
probably the most often used, but the least often
effective. Because it rarely involves praise and
frequently employs criticism, it undercuts morale and
job satisfaction. Mr. Goleman argues it is only
effective in a crisis, when an urgent turnaround is
needed. Even the modern military has come to recognize
its limited usefulness. –
http://guides.wsj.com
|
These categories of styles are important to influencing
climate.
By looking at more than 100 years of motivation research and
studying leadership behaviors as they emerge from a style, I
have identified more than 16 critical motivational styles that
are inherently motivated by intrinsic motives.
You can register for this program beginning now, up and until
April 4, 2013 for a fee of $197, and $297 afterwards. To get
this program and 9 other programs for a "certificate" price,
see our 2013 offer here.
|
