News / Press / Would you win the leadership election 2008?

Would you win the leadership election 2008?

Traditionally the predominant style was fear and autocracy and in many organisations, that’s still the way things are done. People are individuals; they are all different and have different needs when it comes to leading and being lead. Some people will want to be provided with many rules and boundaries which they can follow; some want to be stretched and challenged by a tough leader; others will want to be creative and innovative and decide for themselves how things are done.

It would appear that all styles can work depending upon the circumstances. People tend to gravitate toward the leadership style which suits them best though there can be casualties along the way. It’s not for us to judge what works and what doesn’t – you know your business, but what we can do is provide some information you might find useful.

Fifty years ago, Stogdill defined the key traits leaders must have as ambition; intelligence; energy; knowledge; honesty & integrity; desire to lead and self-confidence. Today Harvard Business School’s research updates this list and sites communication; intelligent strategy; creativity ; creating talented teams ; telling it the way it is; desire to nurture; capacity to learn & cope with change.

There is a marked shift to the softer, perhaps more intellectual skills. These skills will be needed to cope with the key issues facing today’s leader such as engaging and retaining talent; managing change; delivering a well thought out strategy; releasing creativity and innovation and managing what we term the ‘multi-everything workforce’ – in other words managing to best effect an increasingly diverse labour pool with a whole string of contemporary challenges to be met.

We’re often asked what the difference is between a manager and a leader and here’s our definition which perhaps will go some way to explaining how different styles work:

Managers
Drive people
Depend on authority
Inspire fear
Say ‘I’
Know how it’s done
Reasons for the problem
Say ‘Go’

Leaders
Coach people
Depend on goodwill
Inspire enthusiasm
Say ‘we’
Show how it’s done
Fix the problem
Say ‘Let’s Go’

OK so it’s not quite that black and white and often a mix is required, hence the need for well balanced and flexible leadership teams and individuals. Shakespeare said ‘To thine own self be true’ (Hamlet) and a common issue is that aspiring leaders often try to copy others – even when it goes against their natural characteristics, behaviours and preferences.

Whilst it’s good to learn from others and observe different styles, trying to emulate a style or behaviour that isn’t natural to the leader can cause confusion and mixed messages. Perhaps leaders could be better served by being themselves and developing their own style based on what is natural.

Whilst fear can be easier, for the leader at least; it keeps people in line and can raise performance, it is questionable how sustainable this will be; especially in the leader’s absence upon whom they will become dependant. People can bond together through fear though this isn’t necessarily a positive thing for the organisation. On the up side, there are likely to be fewer errors. However, there will also be less innovation in a culture where risk taking is not an option and where people fear making a mistake.

This style of leadership can cause failure or encourage people to hide any errors they do make. It can lessen team spirit as people are more likely to look out for themselves. This style can make people compliant though not committed. Generally, today’s employee wants to remain committed.

As Gallup famously stated ‘People leave people not companies’ and thus there is a tremendous responsibility on leaders at all levels to take responsibility for engaging and retaining those people.

Another aspect leaders might wish to consider is our own research which concluded that the top five things employees need to remain engaged, productive and retained are: communication; leadership; career path; development and to be treated as individuals with their values/aspirations understood and met. Add this to Harvard research into what people are seeking from their leaders: support; positivity; respect; interpersonal dynamics; ability to build teams & talk with them, and you start to build up a picture of the sort of leadership that people crave.

Of course this will be influenced by the individual and it’s worth taking a quick look at generational differences. The baby boom generation (those born between the end of world war two and 1961) will typically have very different attitudes toward the world of work, hierarchies and society in general to the later X and Y generations.

Very briefly, Generation X (1962-1977) are more confident, less compliant, more inspirational, looking for more flexibility and seeking adult to adult relationships. This is why the 30 year old being interviewed by the 50 year old can appear more confident, more demanding and less accommodating than the interviewer ever was (much to his or her consternation). And the Generation Y example (1978-1994) is even more confident, much more up front about things and wants it now. Hence the reluctance to ‘serve time’ on a training scheme when there’s an abundance of faith that they can step right into the management role. Today’s leader should to be aware of these differences and consider how best to manage them to positive effect.

Overall, here’s one last thought:

‘If there was a ‘leadership election’ tomorrow would you win it?’

Leaders could do worse than to ask themselves this question every day.

7 January 2008