Is it in the nature of leaders to breed followers

For Argument sakes –  “Leader only breed followers, they don’t allow of other leaders to emerge, they like it this way “.

Think about it , reflect back at some of the leaders you have worked with , how many of them were indeed more interested in establishing themselves as a leader in the process encouraging and breeding followers.

• Do leaders get into the act of self preservation ?
• Do they rub off their own insecurities to others ?
• Do they not allow for creating of leaders under them?

Let’s examine this ,Leaders like to stay in front of the pack, direct, guide, support remove hindrances. From the leader’s point of view it is clear sailing because the pack is behind him/her and in front is only the challenge of the project. A good leader knows the pack will support him/her when the going gets rough.

It’s a bigger problem, a larger problem of the society. Society breeds followers not leaders. Social rules are a test for a person to be a leader. It’s the unspoken rules which determines his/her aptitude and ultimately points him/her in a suitable and accepted direction. Out of the masses only few true leaders emerge. A person with charisma, strength and determination who is willing to grasp the challenge at hand and wrestle it into submission. [Is trait theory indeed the first act of filtration?].

So how does it become counterintuitive  ?

Let’s face it, a leader cannot expand his/her experience without some risk. Each forward step includes the possibility of one step back so, striving for success also contains the possibility of failure. This is not a bad thing, it is only in the experience one may achieve at all. Success or failure each contains wisdom in their discovery. The incentive to try lies in the reward of the result.

Many people will not try anything new like change jobs or move to a new location or even make a decision on their own. They are followers and they like the comfort in letting someone else make the choices for them. The world needs followers to do the tedious functions that would bore leaders. Creative people can’t follow they have to step out ahead of the pack and take control. They strive for the challenge and excitement of the project. They are the movers and shakers that are innovative in nature and unsettled in demeanor. They strive for change and are at home with challenge.

And it is from them that a new leader emerges.

The Solution

You see, the real problem with  a leader doing all the work is that you preclude the development of others. So, the solution to this problem is to select multiple people to take on the detailed technical tasks that you previously completed. Then, using all of your proper delegation skills: teach the skill, assign the task, and follow-up with the task completion, providing corrections as necessary.

What’s happening is that 1) you aren’t performing the task, 2) you are still involved in the work activity, 3) someone is growing and developing, and 4) you are leading.

What should be then a leader’s measure of success: – Rather than being evaluated on what you personally accomplish, as a leader you should be evaluated on the number of future leaders you develop. This will have a positive impact on the amount your team accomplishes and the way people feel about working with you as a leader will exponentially improve.

So are you a leader who breeds followers or do you breed leaders ??

General von Moltke’s Value Matrix

I discovered an interesting conceptual view on how military staff was classified by General von Moltke’s Value Matrix:

“There are only four types of officer. First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm…Second, there are the hard- working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. Third, there are the hard- working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody. Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.

General Erich Von Manstein (1887-1973) on the German Officer Corps”

If we transfer this into our world, it would look something like this:

• Smart + Lazy: Innovative type that does not rush into things. He figures out the easiest way to accomplish a goal. Has a strategic mind and long-term view. Is a good leader.
  
• Smart + Active: Follows opportunities as they arise in realtime. A manager type. His intelligence is sometimes diluted being confused by too many parallel things and lack of discipline to focus. Gets lots of stuff done. Not a great leader.
  
• Stupid + Lazy: Follows orders. Does not show too much own initiative. Operative administration type. Often inherits value created by the Smart-Actives. Does no harm on teams. Performs in a consistent predictable manner.
  
• Stupid + Active: Dangerous type. Does not follow orders, makes mistakes and pursues his own agenda. Default behaviour is to act in absence of skill. Causes all kinds of trouble.
  

I’m sure, while reading, you already thought about some of your colleagues to be a good fit into one of the 4 categories ;).

Models and Theories in Leadership

Leadership Traits

Leadership theories that attempt to identify the common traits possessed by successful leaders. These traits included:

·         Adaptable to situations

·         Alert to social environment

·         Ambitious and achievement oriented

·         Assertive

·         Cooperative

·         Decisive

·         Dependable

·         Dominant (desire to influence others)

·         Energetic (high activity level)

·         Persistent

·         Self-confident

·         Tolerant of stress

·         Willing to assume responsibility

However the list is ever growing and no definitive list is possible

Leadership Styles and Behaviours

A different perspective to trait theory for leadership is to consider what leaders actually do as opposed to their underlying characteristics. A number of models and theories have been put forward to explore this.

T. McGregor (1906-1964) postulated that managers tend to make two different assumptions about human nature. These views he explored in his theory X and theory Y:

Theory X 1.       The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he or she can. 2.       Because of this human characteristic, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organisational objectives. 3.       The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all.

Theory Y 1.       The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest. 2.       External control and threat of punishment are not the only means for brining about effort toward organisational objectives. People will exercise self-direction and self-control in the service of objectives to which they are committed. 3.       Commitment to objectives is a function of the rewards associated with their achievement. 4.       The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept responsibility but to seek it. 5.       The capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of imagination. Ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organisational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed I the population. 6.       Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilised.

Other studies were carried out to identify successful leadership behaviours, including studies at Ohio State University and Michigan University, following on from this research two studies of particular note were by Gary M. Yukl and by Robert Blake and Jane Mounton.

Ohio State University Research

A series of studies at the University indicated that two behavioural dimensions play a significant role in successful leadership. Those dimensions are:

Consideration – (friendship, mutual trust, respect and warmth)

Initiating Structure – (organises and defines relationships or roles, establishes well-defined patterns of organisation, channels of communication, and ways of getting jobs done.)



University of Michigan Research 

Studies carried at the university revealed two similar aspects of leadership style that correlate with effectiveness:

Employee Orientation – (the human-relations aspect, in which employees are viewed as human beings with individual, personal needs)

Production Orientation – (Stress on production and the technical aspects of the job, with employees viewed as the means of getting the work done.

Gary M. Yukl felt that there was a void in existing descriptions of leader behaviour. They did not provide specific guidelines for behaviour in varying situations. He and his colleagues isolated eleven leadership behaviours which fall into four broad categories:

Building Relationships 1.       Networking 2.       Supporting 3.       Managing conflict

Influencing People 4.       Motivating 5.       Recognising and rewarding

Making Decisions 6.       Planning and organising 7.       Problem solving 8.       Consulting and delegating

Giving / Seeking Information 9.       Monitoring operations and environment 10.   Informing 11.   Clarifying roles

The Leadership Grid

Robert Blake and Jane Mouton developed another theory called the Leadership Grid, focusing on production/relationship orientations uncovered in the Ohio State and Michigan University studies. They went a little further by creating a grid based on Leaders’ concern for people (relationships) and production (tasks). It theory suggest there is a best way to lead people the 9,9 way.

The Major Leadership Grid Styles

1,1        Impoverished management. Often referred to as Laissez-faire leadership. Leaders in this position have little concern for people or productivity, avoid taking sides, and stay out of conflicts. They do just enough to get by. 1,9        Country Club management. Managers in this position have great concern for people and little concern for production. They try to avoid conflicts and concentrate on being well liked. To them the task is less important than good interpersonal relations. Their goal is to keep people happy. (This is a soft Theory X approach and not a sound human relations approach.) 9,1        Authority-Compliance. Managers in this position have great concern for production and little concern for people. They desire tight control in order to get tasks done efficiently. They consider creativity and human relations to be unnecessary. 5,5        Organisation Man Management. Often termed middle-of-the-road leadership. Leaders in this position have medium concern for people and production. They attempt to balance their concern for both people and production, but they are not committed. 9+9      Paternalistic “father knows best” management. A style in which reward is promised for compliance and punishment threatened for non-compliance Opp Opportunistic “what’s in it for me” management. In which the style utilised depends on which style the leader feels will return him or her the greatest self-benefit. 9,9        Team Management. This style of leadership is considered to be ideal. Such managers have great concern for both people and production. They work to motivate employees to reach their highest levels of accomplishment. They are flexible and responsive to change, and they understand the need to change.

Contingency Approaches

Contingency theories propose that fro any given situation there is a best way to manage. Contingency theories go beyond situational approaches, which observe that all factors must be considered when leadership decisions are to be made. Contingency theories attempt to isolate the key factors that must be considered and to indicate how to manage when those key factors are present.

The continuum of Leadership Behaviour

The model put forward by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt framed leadership in terms of choices managers may make regarding subordinates’ participation in decision making.

The actions shown at the left side of the continuum are relatively authoritarian; those at the right side are relatively participative. The manager’s choices depend on three factors:

1.       Forces in the manager: The manager’s value system, confidence in subordinates, leadership inclinations, and feelings of security in an uncertain situation. 2.       Forces in the subordinate: Expectations, need for independence, readiness to assume decision-making responsibility, tolerance for ambiguity in task definition, interest in the problem, ability to understand and identify with the goals of the organisation, and knowledge and experience to deal with the problem. 3.       Forces in the situation: Type of organisation, effectiveness of the group, the problem itself (the task), and time pressure.

Fielder’s Contingency Model

In this model leadership is effective when the leader’s style is appropriate to the situation, as determined by three principal factors:

1.       Leader-member relations: The nature of the interpersonal relationship between leader and follower, expressed in terms of good through poor, with qualifying modifiers attached as necessary. It is obvious that the leader’s personality and the personalities of subordinates play important roles in this variable. 2.       Task structure: The nature of the subordinate’s task, described as structured or unstructured, associated with the amount of creative freedom allowed the subordinate to accomplish the task, and how the task is defined. 3.       Position power: The degree to which the position itself enables the leader to get the group members to comply with and accept his or her direction and leadership

Path-Goal Theory

A leadership theory that focuses on the need for leaders to make rewards contingent on the accomplishment of objectives and to aid group members in attaining rewards by clarifying the paths to goals and removing obstacles to performance. According to the goal-path theory there are four primary styles of leadership:

1.       Directive Leadership: The leader explains the performance goal and provides specific rules and regulations to guide subordinates toward achieving it. 2.       Supportive Leadership: The leader displays personal concern for subordinates. This includes being friendly to subordinates and sensitive to their needs. 3.       Achievement-oriented Leadership: The leader emphasises the achievement of difficult tasks and the importance of excellent performance and simultaneously displays confidence that subordinates will perform well. 4.       Participative Leadership: The leader consults with subordinates about work, task goals, and paths to resolve goals. This leadership style involves sharing information as well as consulting with subordinates before making decisions.

The Path-Goal Model

Action Centred Leadership

A model proposed by John Adair (1973) argued that it is not who you are but what you do which establishes you as a leader. A leader needs to balance the needs of the task, the team and the individual, shown clearly in the diagram below in his 3 circle model. The effective leader carries out the functions and demonstrates the behaviours appropriate to the circles, varying the level according to the needs of the situation.  The leader whilst balancing the three circles, sits in his/her helicopter above the process, ensuring the best possible overview of what is happening.

Leaders Behaviour under Task ·         Providing clear Objectives ·         Providing appropriate procedures ·         Ensuring there is evidence of progress ·         Ensuring avoidance of digression ·         Ensuring deadlines are met Leaders Behaviour under Team ·         Commitment ·         Trust & Openness ·         Sense of purpose ·         Stability ·         Cohesion ·         Success ·         Fun Leaders Behaviour under Individual ·         To be included ·         To make a contribution ·         To be respected ·         To receive Feedback ·         To feel safe ·         To grow

The Leaders Blueprint

KEY ACTION		TASK	TEAM	INDIVIDUAL
Define Objectives		Identify Tasks and Constraints	Hold team meetings Share Commitment	Clarify Objectives Gain Acceptance
PLAN	Gather Information	Consider options Check resources	Consult Encourage Ideas Develop Suggestions Assess skills
	Decide	Prioritise Time scales Standards	Structure	Allocate Jobs Delegate Set targets
Brief		Clarify Objectives Describe plan	Explain decisions Listen Answer questions Enthuse Check understanding
Monitor Support		Assess Progress Maintain standards	Co-ordinate Reconcile conflict Recognise effort	Advise/Praise Assist/Reassure Counsel Discipline
Evaluate		Summarise Progress Review Objectives Re-plan Objectives if necessary	Recognise and gain from Success Learn from Mistakes	Appraise Performance
			Guide and Train Give Praise

Ref : http://www.stewart-associates.co.uk/leadership-models.aspx

The Five Types of Multipliers and Diminishers

There are many ways to stifle the creativity and smarts of your team, just as there are lots of ways to get the most out of people. To assess your leadership style, take the survey at www.multipliersbook.com .

Diminishers

The Empire Builder : Hoards resources and underutilizes talent

The Tyrant : Creates a tense environment that suppresses people’s thinking and capabilities

The Know-It-All : Gives directives that demonstrate how much he or she knows

The Decision Maker : Makes centralized, abrupt decisions that confuse the organization

The Micro-manager : Drives results through his or her personal involvement

Multipliers

The Talent Magnet : Attracts talented people and uses them to their highest potential

The Liberator : Creates an intense environment that requires people’s best thinking and work

The Challenger : Defines an opportunity that causes people to stretch their thinking and behaviors

The Debate Maker : Drives sound decisions by cultivating rigorous debate among team members

The Investor : Gives other people ownership of results and invests in their success

 

Which one are you ?

Cheers !!

Heena