Jim Stroup at Managing Leadership describes it well.

“Initially the gurus told us that leadership was a superlative individual characteristic reserved to the elite, then a democratically distributed attribute accessible by all… first to vision, then decisiveness, then courage, then team-building skills, then forcefulness, then empathy. It’s about looking inward to one’s core self. No, it’s about communication and connecting with others.”

The list of leadership fashions is actually much longer than Jim’s list; different looks are marketed by different leadership houses and each has a name designer at the helm with more junior designers doing much of the actual work. Every so often one of these junior people leaves and starts her own house and so the industry grows.

Along with the major houses are the small independent designers who may be aligned philosophically with a larger house, but put their own spin on the product.

Just as fashionistas drive the cutting edge (which can be pretty weird) in clothes, anoint designers, models and wearers as icons and then trash them for being out of touch or too <whatever>, so, too, do leaderistas drive what’s fashionable in leadership, hold icons up for adulation, dump them from their pedestals when their feet soften and switch when more trendy designs comes along.

The greatest difference is that fashion products are made of real stuff, while leadership products are built of words.

Consider Lao Tzu, who, 2500 years ago said,

“The superior leader gets things done with very little motion. He imparts instruction not through many words but through a few deeds. He keeps informed about everything but interferes hardly at all. He is a catalyst, and though things would not get done well if he weren’t there, when they succeed he takes no credit. And because he takes no credit, credit never leaves him.”

and

“As for the best leaders,
the people do not notice their existence…
When the best leader’s work is done,
the people say, “We did it ourselves!”
To lead the people, walk behind the.”

In 1987 The Leadership Challenge presented the 5 Practices of Leadership

• Model the Way
• Inspire a Shared Vision
• Challenge the Process
• Enable Others to Act
• Encourage the Heart

These days the hot terms are thought leadership and servant leadership.

If you’re getting tired of the leaderistas go back to Lao Tzu’s Tao Teh Ching; I have a copy that, measured in inches, is 4.5×3x3/8 in an easily readable font.

It will rev up your brain, sink into your MAP, juice your leadership abilities and add peace to your soul—not bad for a book you can put in your pocket.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: manbeastextraordinaire on flickr

Post from: Leadership Turn

He recently wrote one with which I disagree, but I see the same topic over and over, so I thought I’d offer up my two cents on the it.

The post lists “styles of leadership” and the types of people on whom they work best; generally these lists refer to how managers, i.e., bosses, handle their people.

In short, there are four styles of situational leadership

1. Directing Leaders define the roles and tasks of the ‘follower’, and supervise them closely.
2. Coaching Leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower.
3. Supporting Leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower.
4. Delegating Leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower.

and six styles categorized by emotional intelligence competencies

1. Coercive: This “Do what I say” style demands immediate compliance.
2. Authoritative: This style mobilizes people toward a vision.
3. Affiliative: This “people-first” style engenders the creation of emotional bonds and team harmony.
4. Democratic: This style builds consensus through participation.
5. Pacesetting: This style expects excellence and self-direction.
6. Coaching: This style focuses on personal development.

I’m sure you’ve seen this discussed before. Wayne Liew’s question sums up the problem I have with the whole idea of “leadership styles.”

He asked, “In your opinion, is it possible for someone to have all the leadership styles that you have listed above? I know it’s hard but if it is possible, would you recommend someone to focus more on perfecting one of the styles or to branch out?”

As Shakespeare said, “There’s the rub.”

It’s not just that different people require different approaches, but that what Joe needs changes not only based on the situation and subject, but also on where Joe’s head is at that moment.

And the ability to assess all that is what separates those who do from those who try.

Whether you call them leaders, managers, leadagers or something else, the real brilliance isn’t in what their style is it’s in the instant, unconscious ability to evaluate each of their people and proceed in the way that works best at that moment.

My final problem with these labels is that the only time they can be applied is after the fact.

At least I’ve never met a manager who thinks along the lines of “I need to talk to Joe about the widget in his design and I think that my best approach would be affiliative, with a hint of authoritative and a fall back position of democratic, but leaning towards coaching.”

In the long run, I find that people use the styles that are most synergistic with their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™). Of course it’s possible stretch to styles that aren’t comfortable, but to do so requires stretching/changing your MAP or else you risk sounding like a fake.

What about you? What’s your take on leadership styles?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: scx.hu

Post from: Leadership Turn