When I began developing young leaders, I started with a group exercise to identify the key characteristics of effective leaders. The format was:
Step 1: Brainstorm a list of leader characteristics.
The results were usually the same: communication, decision making, integrity, motivation, team building, fairness, charisma, ability to delegate, job knowledge, etc.
REFLECT:
What characteristics would you list?
Note: most often, we list the characteristics (1) we value the most (2) we think are true for us. (I always listed fairness close to the top, as it is a high value / purposeful characteristic of mine).
Step 2: Identify 5 leaders.
Years ago, the identified leaders were historical and political figures. As the groups changed, the list of leaders changed, moving to sports figures and then to stars, musicians, and media figures. I used “professor privilege” to add 2 names: Hitler and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Step 3: Assess the leaders in relation to the list of characteristics.
Focusing on one leader at a time, the group voted yes / no if the leader had the characteristic, and gave the characteristic 1 point for each leader that had it. We were assessing the leader characteristics, not the leaders.
Step 4: Highlight the characteristics that ALL leaders had. Discuss.
Step 5: Privately, assess yourself on each of the characteristics, using a 1-10 scale.
Highlight 2-3 low scores you choose to improve first.
Create a plan of action to improve them.
The dozens of times I facilitated this simple exercise, the results were always the same. The ONLY characteristics ALL leaders shared were:
1. motivation
2. communication
3. charisma
Honesty, integrity, fairness, and other positive attributes never made that list. While this oversimplifies leadership, it provides a clear direction for areas to develop and continuously improve.
In contrast to my simplistic exercise, academic approaches include over 400 definitions and numerous “types”.
Overview of the most common types:
In the 1930’s, Kurt Lewin identified 3 single dimensional types:
(1) Autocratic leadership is authoritarian, full control, no participation, follow orders, do-it-my-way leadership. It is common in military and paramilitary organizations. Autocratic leaders are often toxic leaders.
Pro: it can be fast and efficient.
Con: It involves micro-managing, and does not allow for individuality, creativity, innovation, and improvement. It creates employee dissatisfaction through feelings of being dictated to, ignored, undervalued, etc.
(2) Democratic leadership is a participatory team approach with shared decision making and a free flow of ideas and information. Group members participate in planning, decision making, and innovation. The leader offers guidance and control and can letthe group make the final decision or reserve that power for themselves. This is one of the most effective types of leadership, and supports higher morale, productivity and engagement. This style works in most organizations.
Pro: it can create “buy-in”, motivation, and job satisfaction.
Con: striving for consensus can be inefficient, timely, costly, and lead to conflict.
Laissez-Faire leadership is a “let it be” style based on trust in the abilities of others. It allows for a high-level of autonomy, self direction and creativity.While the leader is still responsible for the overall performance, the staff use their own creativity and experiences to meet goals.This style works in innovative and creative organizations, especially research and development.
Pro: staff feels in control, – trusted, independent, engaged, valued
Con: can create confusion, chaos and non performance with new projects, disorganized teams, unskilled and inexperienced staff.
REFLECT:
Have you been led by one of these styles?
Do you lead with one of these styles?
What has worked best for you in both situations?
Situations might require one of these styles, or a blend of them. Leaders with the ability to analyze and adapt become top-level leaders of highperformance organizations / teams / groups.
Refining this leadership need for analysis and adaptability to focus on the individual follower’s needs, Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard developed a situational leadership approach (1969):
Situational Leadership: a flexible and adaptable style based on individual followers’ needs, assuming the roles of Directing (autocratic), Coaching & Supporting (democratic), and Delegating (laissez-faire).
“I’m here for you – in whatever style you need me to be.”
In 1970, Paul Greenleaf named a style that had a spiritual dimension:
Servant Leadership: a conscious choice to serve first; focusing primarily on the growth and well-being of people and their communities
“How can I serve you?”
In 1978, Burns discussed — and in 1985, Bass refined — a broader style:
Transformational Leadership: emotionally connecting to inspire and motivate big changes through vision, inspiration, and call to action
“How can we be the best we can be / do the best we can do?”
Visionary Leadership has been defined with various definitions, traits, characteristics and skills.My favorite definition(non-academic) is:
The visionary leader images positive, possible futures
and works co- creatively with others to effect the evolving vision.
Leah Cooper
(Notice she says images, not imagines. See the blog on vision).
The last three styles are often the styles of conscious leaders, and separate blogs will be presented on each of them.
APPLY:
Do you want to identify as a Servant Leader? A Transformational Leader? A Visionary Leader?
If so, write a statement about being them: I AM a —— leader.
Add behaviors that would identify you as that type of leader: I behave in the following ways that identify me as a ——- leader.
