Leadership styles, the pragmatic way

For decades, leadership literature has flourished and spread. Even if you castaway the masses of breakthrough self-help books promising quick, easy and effortless solutions that you can implement over the weekend, then... there is still the abundance of the serious ones. By serious I mean the works of research, conducted by real researchers, based on years of analysis and supported by reliable statistical material. These are extremely valuable books and articles that you have to read, read and read again. While they cannot be criticised from a substantive point of view, they have en masse one major drawback... Each of these researchers proposes their "own" set of leadership styles, consisting of at least few elements. The set is then picked up, modified (mutations!) and distributed by hundreds of training companies and consultants. It's natural; everyone has the right to be original. It’s just only that we, the line leaders (or pretending to be so) are at a loss.

Visionary, Coaching, Affiliative, Democratic, Commanding, Pacesetting (Goleman); Authoritarian, Democratic,Laissez-faire (Lewin); Strategy, Human-Assets, Expertise, Box and Change Approaches (Farkas, Wetlaufer), and so on... Studies that show how it is and how it should actually be. Research from the perspective of business goals; research from the perspective of attitudes towards people; research from the perspective of short- and long-term effectiveness. Also, servant leadership or turquoise organisations. Ufff... It’s enough to look up ?leadership styles” in Wikipedia to understand why we need to call Houston. In other words – we have a problem.

At this point, we can clearly see what the problem is. How to embrace it all? Each author is right, in a way. The thing is, with at least a dozen of authors multiplied by several styles/approaches/behaviours we end up having a jigsaw puzzle of hundreds if not thousand pieces... the more we read, the more lost we are. All the more so, since it is not a classic jigsaw puzzle that becomes a clear picture upon finishing. These jigsaw puzzles intertwine, overlap and the outcome is more likely to be a maze than a picture. But as we said, each of them is a piece of a bigger truth. Where does it lead us then?

What often happens in such cases: we have more and more knowledge, but we are not necessarily wiser. And even if we are wiser, it does not necessarily translate into a greater degree of self-awareness and, more importantly, business efficiency. We read these descriptions and we still have the impression that this part is about me and this part not so much, but still a bit about me, and that other part, at first glance, absolutely not, but when you come to think of it, it is also somehow about me. For when it is necessary, I am a tiger or a fox and I can even be a mouse when needed (especially during the CEO's visit :-). There is a high probability of confusion. So at the end, we either naively believe that we can consciously and effectively switch between many leadership styles, or no longer care about it and continue to do our job the way we always did. None of this is effective.

So what can we do with it? Simplify, as always. First things first, we need to have a simple model that we can easily understand and control. And when we finally understand it and learn how to operate it on a daily basis, only then we can add new elements. Classic stuff…

We are talking about leadership here. You lead people – not targets, nor budgets. Therefore I am going to focus on the human element of this business. I suggest we consider two models of leadership, which I am going to break down into their historical context, easily and intuitively comprehensible (that’s what a model should be like). And instead of giving them names (which some aforementioned scientists have already done), I will describe them.

Model 1 – from prehistory to A.D. 1940.

- most of the jobs are simple or can be broken down into simple elements

- such a simple and repetitive job, assigned to many workers, can be effectively managed by a single leader

- low variety of work, low mobility of the workers/employees, one job for life, your employer is your “master”

- the leader has a full power and knowledge and does not share it with anyone (he’s the most powerful and best-informed person)

- one-way communication, mostly top-to-down; the “down” performs without asking questions

- the leadership position itself makes you an authority figure

- decisions are centralised and made by a very narrow circle of people

- independent thinking and own initiative of the performers are not welcome; on the contrary – there is no need of thinkers, but performers, who, in critical situations, can be given orders

- external attributes of executive power – an office, a uniform, a car, a personal title (“Mr. President”, “Thank you, Sir”), special privileges, keeping distance from the working people

Examples:

- Napoleon – he was the only person, who knew the entire plan; he managed by giving constant and detailed orders in large numbers; he was undeniably outstanding, so as long as he remained lucky and successful, the system worked; he was a keystone – when removed, the entire construction collapsed

- The Soviet Army – rather self-explanatory... the longer your shoulder strap, the higher power you have; for subordinates you are a god and they should be given your approval for any action

- an assembly line in its classic form of the early 20th century; beautifully ridiculed by Charlie Chaplin in his “Modern Times”, as well as tragically dramatised by Fritz Lang in “Metropolis”, his classic dystopia about a two-tiered society

- Pascal's calculator of the 17th century, an amazing machine that lost to human resources, all because hiring human calculators was still less expensive and less fallible.

Model 2 – present day

- increasingly complex work, which requires a high level of ongoing decision-making, especially in the face of dynamic and constant changes

- the work requires well-educated experts, who surpass the leader in their narrow specialisation; one leader is not capable of comprehending all the details and full understanding of all processes, even at low-level positions; everybody contributes

- high variety of work and high mobility of the employees; it is possible and more frequently desired to change jobs; the company puts effort in retaining valuable employees

- delegating responsibilities is a necessity; the leader makes key decisions, coordinates, gives direction, but the overwhelming rest is in the hands of the team; even key decisions are subject to prior discussion

- company-wide communication and knowledge transfer, both technical and strategic in terms of own duties, the team, the company, other departments

- employees must understand the wide spectrum of their team’s and the company’s functions, which allows them to make independent decisions in critical or unusual situations; it is expected of employees to be independent and able to make decisions

- authority is built upon the leadership style, not the job title itself

- cutting the distance between executives and subordinates, external emblems of power are abandoned.

Examples:

- numerous contemporary business legends, like sir Richard Branson, who have succeeded due to contemporary, modern rules (but understanding how the old models worked)

- US Army – every soldier is a constantly perfected specialist, whose opinion, initiative and independence matter – this is a part of their training

- organisations based on technology development specialists; see Google offices for reference. This model is already flourishing among all business sectors

- Toyota Production System and its legacy, such as Lean Management. The key element is a conscious engagement of all participants.

Does it mean that the historical model (a.k.a. authoritarian) is completely archaic, and the only right way is the modern model (democratic)? Of course not. There are areas where the older methods are proven to be more effective. These are extreme critical situations, where instantaneous action is required and the time pressure is overwhelming. But even in such situations it is better to have a well-trained modern team, who nonetheless understands that sometimes they have to move it fast. And when the boss is out, the team won’t collapse… (see Napoleon, authoritarian parties, or founder/owner dominated companies).

To sum it up, in a metaphoric way: as usual, the ancients did not fail to already know all this, so let’s quote them quite accurately: Nec Hercules contra plures.

As for the above mentioned argument, it means that one head (even a unique one) is no longer sufficient in an increasingly complex and dynamic world. It is necessary to use each head in the team. However, it is a good thing to have Hercules on your side.

PS. Important – I am not proposing a model of U?ycki, which erects a new order upon the ruins of great old predecessors. I am a business family doctor, not a clinician. My input is an attempt to sort out the chaos of surplus,and make important and complex theories easier to adapt to everyday life. I am not putting together new theories (at least, not yet…).

PSS. Why 1940? Of course, it is just a symbol, not a specific date. It was a year of the Battle of France, where both leadership models literally battled. The result was decisive and... terrifying because the new model was adopted for criminal purposes by the Axis. The business adopted this model significantly later, foremost popularised by Peter F. Drucker.