“A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” 

-Martin Luther King

A Feb 2016 paper by Mr Robson’s former university, LSE, argues “that leaders will adapt their leadership style according to the social context in which their organisation is operating.” (source). Why? It is not a fixed set of personality traits that assures good leadership but how the leader is representing the nature of the group she is leading (Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2011) Leaders should fit with their group and also shape the group’s identity in a way that makes their own agenda appear to be an expression of that group identity. Okay, in conclusion, all that just means: use the right tool (leadership style) for the situation.

 

Author Daniel Goleman in a 2000 study called “Leadership That Gets Results” (Harvard Business Review) finds six leadership styles:

Coercive: “DO IT THIS WAY”. One way to achieve a goal. Comply or die. Usually ineffective in long-term. In short-term, what situations may this be very effective? 

Authoritative: “SEE OVER THERE? GO THERE”. State the goal but give people a choice of how to achieve it. 

Affiliative: “YOU ARE BRILLIANT” (NOBODY ELSE THINKS SO). Improve harmony and team spirit. Little to no advice.  

Democratic: “WE WANT EVERYBODY’S IDEAS”. Great for finding fresh ideas. Two downsides?  

Pacesetter: “LOOK AT ME. I’M DOING SO MUCH. LOOK AT YOU. YOU’RE MY EQUAL. OH YOU’RE NOT KEEPING UP? STOP HOLDING US BACK.” Set the gold standard. Many competent and self-motivated employees will meet that standard. Others will feel discouraged. #Resentful?

Coaching: “I KNOW YOU KNOW YOU KNOW NOTHING. LET’S BUILD YOUR SKILLS FROM SCRATCH”. Works on personal development rather than specific skills/tasks. Great for employees who know their weaknesses and want to improve. Drawback? 

 Effective leaders switch between FOUR styles:

A

A

C

D

Culture and leadership style:

Warning: stereotypes ahead! This area is a minefield but it’s interesting and important – if you feel offended, remember that I aim to offend indiscriminately, rather than at one specific culture.

Richard Lewis, a prominent author and culture expert provides his resources below:

Chinese managers: the group is sacred and leaders are seen as benevolent. In companies controlled by the Chinese state, a leadership group will decide policy. In capitalist-style companies, competent leaders are emerging; also, locally elected officials are becoming influential in the business sphere and may have only loose ties with Beijing.

American managers are assertive, goal oriented, confident, vigorous, optimistic, and individualistic. “Structured individualism”.

British managers are diplomatic, casual, helpful, willing to compromise, and seeking to be fair, though they can be ruthless when necessary.

German managers strive to create a perfect system. There is a clear chain of command in each department and information and instructions are passed down from the top.

Indian managers: Family members hold key positions and work closely.

In Latin and Arab countries, authority is with the chief executive, and family relations are very important, leading to nepotism.

Russian managers initially aim to go through official channels. But using key people and personal alliances, official channels are often bypassed and a good result achieved.

Gender and leadership style:

Top corporate leadership is almost exclusively male. Doesn’t matter what continent: Asia, America, Europe (less so). Why might this be?

Women are interpersonal and collaborative.

Men are singleminded, task-oriented.  

Eagly & Johnson (1990) in a Purdue University meta-study (what’s that you ask!?) found that women and men do not lead according to the above stereotypes in organizational studies (e.g., in business). In laboratory assessments, women tend to lead more democratically and less coercively than men. Keep in mind doesn’t mean all women are less authoritative than men; just that if you have a room of 100 women and 100 men, there may only be a couple more women who possess a democratic style versus the male group.

See this great Harvard Business Review article on gender here. One of the key points from the article is:

The manager of a large American tech company is a typical example – he confessed to me recently that he was having a really hard time finding women “who fit the culture.”

This is backwards. Established companies should instead be focusing on changing their

culture to fit women. Three simple steps could help:

1. Have the CEO lead the charge (not women, not HR, not the head of diversity).

2. Align senior leaders on the need for change (trust me, they aren’t) and how to

implement it (again, I guarantee they don’t already know how).

3. Hold them accountable for progress (just as with any other business target).

Age and Leadership Style:

The average age of a Fortune 500 company CEO is 55.

View this article from Harvard Business Review here: “How old are Silicon Valley’s top founders?”  Over 45% of these “top founders” are aged 20 – 34. What leadership style might these younger leaders possess? (try researching company culture at tech companies).   

What are the benefits and drawbacks to having a young CEO? A middle-aged CEO? A 60+ year old CEO?