What Kind of a Leader Are You?

Almost a year ago, I had participated in a poll set up by?Dr. Nirmalya Kumar. He is Lee Kong Chian Professor of Marketing at Singapore Management University and Distinguished Fellow at INSEAD Emerging Markets Institute.

In the poll he talks about the three kinds of meetings that he has seen CEO’s run. You can access this poll and see how people voted?here.

Essentially, the options he shares are not just relevant for CEO’s and their meetings, but to all leaders and the kinds of culture we create and promote within our teams.

So, here are the options Nirmalya Kumar shares in his poll:

A meeting of equals:

In this case, where the CEO is first among equals and everyone is allowed to debate to arrive at the decisions that is then agreed upon and everyone is fully on-board to implement. This could lead to disagreements and debates (on ideas). This requires a level of trust and openness within the team.

A audience to reinforce the hierarchy

In this case, the CEO speaks, rest listen for clues to what the CEO is thinking and how it will impact their lives. This is the classical “Sage on stage” scenario, where the CEO know’s it all and has answers to all the challenges. He is the one to do the thinking, everyone is there just to execute his/her thinking.

A political arena

In this case, the meetings constitutes various subgroups and each subgroup makes their case for resources, wording it as though their aspirations and plans are in overall groups interest irrespective of whether it is true or not. And the CEO plays the arbiter. This is a clear situation ripe for power plays within the groups.

Conclusion

Now, the question is whether there is a right way to run these meetings and a wrong way to run them. My belief is that there is a time and place for each of these approaches, depending upon what the objective for the meeting is.

The problem arises when all our meetings default to one of these options consistently.

That then becomes a pattern that everyone then works out a way to play to their own benefits. Irrespective of whether they get what they want (or not), everyone is exhausted and comes out not liking the results, which is really a bad thing for the team and the organisation.

The question that we need to answer as leaders then is the following:

Do we run our meetings in all modes, as and when required or do we default to one specific mode?

The kind of meetings we run tells a lot about what kind of a leader we are, simply because so much of our work and interaction with those we lead happens in a meeting environment.

So, if you were to rate how your leaders run their meetings, how would you rate them? How would you rate your own meetings? How would the people you lead rate the meetings you lead?

PS: This post was originally published on my blog - "Leading Transformation" and has been republished here with permission.