Leadership
In a series of articles Pat Sheridan talks about the various aspects of the management function under the headings of planning, organisation, control and motivation (POCM), in six separate articles, the last two addressing the complex question of human motivation. Leadership is the seventh article in this series and attempts to both separate the leadership element from management responsibility and also to review how it fits into management as an integral feature of achievement.
Introduction
We like to think that a leader is someone we can ‘look up to’, someone who has earned our respect, someone who seems to know what to do, has most of the answers, can answer our questions, someone who can act as our guide, helps our development, encourages us to learn and have a go, and particularly someone we can depend on.
All of the above are reasonable expectations for a leader. We all have our own personal expectations of what we expect from a leader, both general and specific. These expectations oscillate in relation to the environment in which we are based, and, as this environment changes in response to internal and external influences, the demands on leadership qualities also shifts.
This reflection on leadership qualities could consider leaders within the boy/girl scouts, a sergeant in the army, a political activist, a baggage handling supervisor at a busy airport, a chief executive of a global manufacturing company, a social worker in an underprivileged sector of a community, the president of a country and so on. Every situation where people are required to direct others to achieve results in fact has a leadership element which, if addressed with some thought and planning can contribute positively to the intended result.
All such examples are managers in their own right. As they are responsible for the work, policy direction, support, etc of others they are also leaders. So, your initial question will be, ‘what is the difference, they are leaders and therefore they are managers?’ This basic question is legitimate and the first and obvious response is yes, management and leadership are inseparable. So to ensure our focus in this article is clear, let us look at how we are to consider the question of leadership as follows. All jobs including management require a certain mix of knowledge, skill and attitude. For our purpose let us say that the management piece deals more with the knowledge and skill requirements, in terms of a systematic approach, and the leadership piece is driven more by the attitude and style of the manager/leader in his or her interactions with others. It is mainly the motivational piece of the POCM management approach discussed in the previous articles.
Considerations
At this point you may think that we have already exhausted the basic management concept theme in the last six articles and that, as we have addressed the general management concept, we must have covered the question of leadership as part of the management theme. To some extent this is true. It is difficult to consider the management function without leadership being present and interwoven into the overall process as we take actions to get things done and achieve particular objectives. This would be a reasonable assumption and leadership is an integral part of management and a very desirable and important ability for every manager.
Yet, like the previous articles suggested, there are good and bad managers. Likewise, there are good and bad leaders. So is there a difference between a manager and a leader? Are there different responsibilities, different characteristics? Or, alternatively, are there just differences between different leaders and does the management piece remain constant? These are interesting questions, particularly for those studying or addressing the prerequisites of good management and leadership concepts and behaviour.
Just to reinforce the view that there are indeed different perceived standards or qualities in our leaders, I would ask you to consider which leaders you are aware of, either now or in the past, at a head of state level, who have given you a satisfactory comfort level, someone you would have trusted or respected. Just jot down the first few examples.
Now consider and jot down those who you believe were unsatisfactory; the ones which would not have made you feel comfortable; the ones who would instil concern or even fear, the ones which you would not have trusted or respected.
The obvious ones that generally arise in training sessions, at either end of the scale are high regard - Ghandi and low regard - Hitler. Despite this massive gap in our perception of leadership attributes it is also clear that both of these people had some common ingredients, for example, their charismatic influence and their ability to communicate, persuade and convince.
The first achieved the desired results through a subtle and quiet demonstration of beliefs in human rights, beliefs which he thought were inherent in human nature. He gave a practical visual demonstration of these beliefs as he lead by example. He continues to receive global recognition as one of the best example or role models in terms of positive leadership.
The second example achieved results through a forceful, aggressive and control based expression of his convictions of what ‘he believed was best’ for the future of his subjects.
So we can be lead in a positive direction or in a negative and destructive direction by leaders. We have confidence in one type of leader and we can fear another. Some of us can judge the difference and choose to accept or reject the leader, others find this difficult. In fact some will follow a leader because they are afraid to do otherwise.
Of the two extreme examples from a similarity point of view, they both motivated their followers. So the common characteristics of leadership, such as communications abilities, influence, persuasion and motivation were used effectively in both cases. In both of these leadership examples above, the characters united large numbers of humans to a common purpose.
The uncommon features were the actual purpose and methods or style applied.
One purpose included a sense of what was right and attracted a growing level of support. The other had a sense of what was wrong and attracted a growing level of resistance until the defined purpose was finally obliterated.
One led by example with minimum control, the other by dictation and extreme control. One was based on love and concern, the other was based on hatred and fear and a need to dominate. So the individual’s personal agenda in terms of needs can impact the rationale, the purpose, style and methods of the leadership approach.
To get back to our base-line for positive leadership, in essence, the application of the common attributes described above must be tempered with reason and within a sense of what is predominantly accepted as human rights. The notion of what is right varies from person to person therefore a definition of what are rights must be crystal clear. These are rights clearly defined and expressed through our constitution and supporting legislation. Within a company these would also extend to the companies policies, practices and procedures and the maintenance of these in application.
The leader’s style has to be considered within the context of these clearly defined rights. However, the leaders style embraces much more than the application of textbook rules and procedures.
Readers will agree that many leaders seem to be born rather than developed. Others who received the best and most expensive personal development and regular management coaching and mentoring still fail to come across as strong and positive leaders. We have good examples over the last few years of massive developmental inputs to some global leaders which have failed to turn out the miraculous ‘silk purse from the sow’s ear’. It is difficult to become a good leader unless there are some inherent core characteristics present which can be cultivated and honed.
You may remember from the last article on motivation where we looked at the characteristics of high and low trust environments in organisations. The method or style of dealing with people contributed directly to the level of motivation.
Genuinely respected leadership is based on trust and belief. The credibility of the leader is measured consciously and subconsciously by those who are affected by the individual’s behaviour. Most of the time this judgement is ambiguous, it is not a bunch of behavioural lists which we score our leader on each week (though not a bad idea), it is most often an emotional reaction to behaviour.
We either feel right about the leader or we do not. If we do not, we may then be able to quantify why this might be so, but generally this is a retrospective consideration, the decision already having been made within our minds, based on a collection of observations and experiences. If a person comes across as shifty or displays the body language of a liar or acts like a control freak then that is what the subconscious will pick up. They may apparently be managing within the terms of their immediate responsibility but they are not trusted and therefore the direct reports performance will be less than what it could be as a percentage of their energy is diverted to self protection or ‘leader avoidance’.
Even a high level of communications skills laced with clever rhetoric will generally fail to convince the average person of sincerity if it does not in fact exist. Of course the second leadership example above will tend to make a liar out of the last sentence and there will be books written on those phenomena forever and this article is not really meant to be a psychological analysis of that piece of history. Suffice it to say, we will always be able to find an exception to a general rule.
The Perfect Leader
Can there be such a phenomenon? Is there a core approach for leaders in general? I think most of us would agree that there is no panacea, no recipe which can be replicated to deliver the same result. In fact there are a multitude of approaches which need to be considered and cherry-picked to suit each situation. The more complex the issue and the more risk and dependence hangs on the outcome of the leader’s actions, then the more careful the approach.
So the answer is an unequivocal no, there is no fixed leadership model. The approach must always be multifaceted and directly related to circumstances. None-the-less there are still some core leadership traits which are common if the leader is to gain respect and support and thereby achieve the desired results.
The following are a few different styles of leadership which a manager/leader could adopt depending on circumstances. Here are some leadership styles which are understood and operated by leaders, naturally falling into one or more approaches and sticking with it or oscillating throughout all approaches to match the demands of fluctuating circumstances.
- The leader decides and directs what is to be done.
- The leader consults with the team, considers the views and incorporates good ideas.
- The leader delegates decision making within guidelines.
- The leader ensures consensus in all analysis and decision-making.
How a leader adapts these approaches to meet changing circumstances should have some logic and consistency which can be clearly understood and respected by all involved in the process.
Leadership style which oscillates on a whim or on a personal humour change will not gain trust and respect. In fact it will have the opposite affect and bring about doubt and fear.
Ideally leaders will show trust in the team and will be sufficiently confident in their own abilities to encourage and guide the team through analysis and decision-making processes. In other words, the leader will coach, mentor and nurture talent to make the overall team wiser and stronger. So the leader is building competencies. It is a developmental, as well as a decision-making state of thinking or behaviour.
There will be times when the urgency, complexity or importance of circumstances demand immediate and decisive action and where there is no time to involve others. However the communications aspect of the style can still be used to ensure consistency with regard to sharing information and respect for the team members. There still must be a leader even in a participative environment, the leader must still have the vision of where the organisation is going and how he/she intends to get there. It is all the ancillary challenges, demands, changes, etc that will allow the team to utilise their innovative talents under the guidance of the leader.
Different types of leaders can be required from time to time depending on the circumstances. It is not always possible for a leader to be able to make radical shifts in style which will adequately compensate for a major change in circumstances.
For example a shift in a company’s regular market place activities due to the introduction of a revolutionary new product by a competitor might require a major change in leadership to cope with a dramatic fall off in business, which could result in job losses or potential closure.
Perhaps the leader has not got the capacity in terms knowledge and skill to address the product issue and/or the consultative style of approach needed to unite the team. The style which worked extremely well when the business demands were less challenging, now falls short in terms of responding adequately to ‘save the day’. The leader finds it difficult to switch to an autocratic and dictatorial style with sufficient clout to bring about immediate survival innovations. The board of directors decide to bring in a fast acting troubleshooter with specific experience in rescuing a business from the brink. We all know these things happen and often with good cause.
One might say that the leader should have been closer to the ground in terms of preparedness, ready with contingency plans to put into action once the business threat surfaces. Many leaders do have this approach built into their overall plan. Some do not. As stated at the beginning, there are good leaders and there are those who are not so good. The desire for our leaders to be perfect in all circumstances is unfortunately a utopian impossibility. That is why leaders rise and fall and why there is a need from time to time to adapt and change.
Conclusion
Management and leadership are integrated and yet are influenced by circumstances, objectives, and challenges arising from outside and within our organisations. Constantly evolving circumstances place new and ever more challenging demands on the knowledge and skills of our leaders and this in turn affects their attitude and leadership style. Sometimes it is possible to make up the shortfall in the knowledge or skill-sets and some times this is just not possible.
Alternatively the leader’s knowledge and skill sets are exactly what the ‘doctor ordered’ but the leader’s style no longer suits the team or the environment. Often the attitude and leadership style requires a bigger shift than the leader can cope with in terms of core abilities or desirability and the leader decides to move on. Alternatively, the leader fails to recognise the changing demands finds it increasingly difficult to lead and loses the respect and trust of some or all of the team. The leader is changed and life continues. In some circumstance previous leaders are brought back because their particular abilities are required again and the trust and respect remains intact, the expression ‘horses for courses’ comes to mind.
You may now agree that specific management requirements of knowledge, skill, attitude and leadership style, while integrated in an operational sense, can be perceived differently in different circumstances and that each of these aspects of management oscillates in terms of demands and approach. So these core management prerequisites are integrated in operation and are yet separate when being analysed in terms of changing business needs.
