What kind of Leader are you?

If you have stopped to read any of our content before, you will probably notice we talk a lot about several topics. Culture is a big one. We believe that the health of an organization is shaped by a culture that either empowers or limits its most valuable asset: people. While there are several dimensions of a healthy culture that will have an impact, there is one that stands out in its widespread impact and as you can probably guess from the title, we are talking about leadership.

Leadership sets the agenda for cultural change, leads conversations and communication and perhaps most importantly, and models the behavior required to create cultural change. If an organization wants to reimagine their culture, leadership has a vital role to play. Unfortunately, research indicates that a bit of a leadership crisis is in effect.

• 77% of businesses indicated that leadership is lacking
• 50% of people that leave jobs do so to get away from a bad manager
• 60% of leaders feel burnt out at the end of the day
• 18% of organizations find their leaders “very effective” at meeting business objectives.
• 22 % of employees think their leaders are transparent with them [1]

The picture that starts to reveal itself when you examine most leaders today is grim. Largely they are perceived by their employees as ineffective and untrustworthy, and on top of that they are tired and burnt out. As many organizations report serious challenges in developing leaders to step in for the current leaders with 10,000 baby boomers reaching retirement age each day, the forecast for leadership that drives healthy culture can seem bleak at best. Each of these issues could be examined extensively, but where can leaders start?

Many of the leaders we interact with became leaders seemingly by accident. Many had a great idea, or were skilled at a trade (plumbing, construction, etc.). Over time, their idea and hard work turned into an organization with employees, overhead, multiple teams, and a need for leadership. Often the activities that fall to leaders aren’t within their natural wheelhouse. It is no wonder that many of them feel burnt out as they juggle several hats they didn’t want to wear in the first place. While everyone can be a leader, it is important to note that most people gravitate towards a specific leadership style, which often has pros and cons in any situation.

Defining leadership styles

There are several schools of thought on leadership, but many of them stem back to 1939, when a research group led by Kurt Lewin created a study to identify distinct types of leadership by creating groups of school children that were led through a project by different leaders. Their response to the different leaders was then observed and recorded. [2] This study identified 3 primary leadership styles that serve as a foundation of leadership thought today — authoritarian leadership (autocracy), participative leadership (democracy), and delegative leadership (laissez-faire).

Authoritarian Leadership

Also known as autocratic leaders, this style of leadership sets clear expectations for accomplishing goals. This includes what is going to be done as well as how and when it should be done. This style relies on command by the leader over the followers. It creates a clear delineation between leader and follower with the leader making decisions with little input from other group members.

Pros:

While this style may strike you as dictatorial (and it certainly can be) there is a time and place for it. Here are some of the benefits:

• Provides clear direction quickly
• Relieves pressure and stress by taking decision making off the shoulders of many and relying on execution of commands
• Creates a clear structure that is easy to slot into

Cons:

While it works in some situations, autocratic leadership is not without problems and has potential to create resentment:

• Input from contributors is discouraged in favor of executing commands
• Morale can be stumped as many team members want to contribute in a meaningful way
• Can be seen as bossy and controlling

Participative Leadership

The study conducted by Lewin found that participative leadership, also called democratic leadership is often the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders participate in and guide their team, but also seek input from their team members. One interesting note is that the participants in this leadership group during the study were overall less productive, but what they contributed was much higher quality than in the authoritarian group.

Democratic leaders still retain the power to make the final decision, but seek to engage the group members in the process.

Pros:

• Better ideas, unique perspectives and solutions
• Team members are often more committed to the team
• Work quality usually higher than other dynamics

Cons:

• Roles can become less clear
• Groups that lack skill can struggle to make high quality decisions
• Allowing team members to contribute ideas also creates opportunity for someone to feel slighted when their opinions is overridden
• Communication is paramount and can break down with unclear role distinction
• Can be slower than other leadership styles to achieve results [3]

Delegative Leadership

Also known as laissez-faire or hands-off leadership, this approach offers little in terms of guidance to their team members and usually lets them have decision making power. During the study this group was the least productive. They cooperated poorly, achieved little independently, and actually placed more demands on their leader than other groups. Generally this approach is not recommended unless the team is composed of experts with extensive experience.

Pros:

• Employees have great potential for growth as they have to be very involved to move projects ahead
• Decision making is faster as everyone can make their own decisions without checking with leadership
• Freedom can encourage employees to innovate and create

Cons:

• No clarity of role
• Leadership has very little accountability (can blame team for goals not being met)
• Can be a way to avoid real leadership by being passive
• Leaders can be perceived as withdrawn and this can lead to less commitment from team members. [4][5]

These three leadership styles are not all-encompassing. However, they serve as the foundation for many modern studies and theories of leadership. More importantly, they offer a starting place for business leaders to examine how they lead their teams. With that in mind we would like to throw one modern theory of leadership into the mix — situational leadership.

One size rarely fits all

Most leaders gravitate towards a specific style of leadership. But in reality, leaders need to be flexible. Every project, every team, and every individual are unique. There are unique deadlines, external and internal pressures, challenges, changes and more. In 1969, educators Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed the situational leadership model to demonstrate that the most effective leaders need to be able to adapt to the variables that each situation presents. Whether it is dealing with the way your team members handle conflict, or adapting decision making processes to make sure deadlines are hit, situational leadership means understanding the needs of a current situation and leading in a way that will lead to the best outcome.

Being a strong leader in a variety of situations is the goal for anyone looking to reimagine their culture and drive real change and growth. Keep your eyes peeled for our upcoming post, breaking down situational leadership in more depth. For now, consider the three foundational theories of leadership, and take some time to reflect on your leadership style, your executive team, and even your middle management. Identifying what kind of leaders are driving your organization can help you identify where there could be gaps, misfits, or potential minefields as you start to think about leading your company into organizational health.

If you have any questions about leadership styles or driving cultural change, we would love to chat. Just click here to get in touch.

References

1. Hall, B. (2015). State of Leadership Development 2015: Time to Act is Now. Brandon Hall Group. Retrieved February 2, 2022, from https://www.brandonhall.com/State+of+Leadership+Development+2015
2. Lewin K, Lippitt R, White K. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. J Soc Psychol. 1939;10(2):271–301.
3. St. Thomas University Online. What is democratic/participative leadership? How collaboration can boost morale.
4. Mostofi A. The effect of class management types (Authoritative, democratic, laissez-faire) on teacher professional development among Iranian EFL teachers. JALLR. 2019;5(5):248–265.
5. Al-Malki M, Juan W. Impact of laissez-faire leadership on role ambiguity and role conflict: Implications for job performance. Int J Innov Econ Dev. 2018;4(1):29–43. doi:10.18775/ijied.1849–7551–7020.2015.41.2003
6. Blanchard KH, Zigarmi P, Drea Zigarmi. Leadership and the One Minute Manager: Increasing Effectiveness Through Situational Leadership. William Morrow, An Imprint Of HarperCollins; 2013.