1.
A New Reality for Leaders
A paradigm is a shared mindset that represents a fundamental way of thinking about,
perceiving, and understanding the world. Although many leaders are still operating from an old-
paradigm mindset, in the first column of the exhibit, they are increasingly ineffective. Successful
leaders will respond to the new reality outlined in the second column of the exhibit. Draw exhibit
1.2
From Stabilizer to Change Manager
In the past, many leaders assumed that if they could just keep things running on a steady,
even keel, the organization would be successful. Yet today's world is in constant motion, and
nothing seems certain anymore. Most leaders, whether in business, politics, the military,
education, social services, the arts, or the world of sports, recognize that trying to maintain
stability in a world of such unexpected and far-reaching change is a losing battle. Organizational
success results from leaders who can remain calm, focused, and disciplined in the face of
uncertainty and inevitable change.
From Controller to Facilitator
Leaders in powerful positions once believed strict control was needed for the
organization to function efficiently and effectively. Rigid organizational hierarchies, structured
jobs and work processes, and detailed, inviolate procedures let everyone know that those at the
top had power and those at the bottom had none.
Today, the old assumptions about the distribution of power are no longer valid. Effective
leaders share power rather than hoard it and find ways to increase an organization's brainpower
by getting everyone in the organization involved and committed. Rather than being a controller,
the leader is a facilitator who helps people do and be their best by removing obstacles to
performance, getting people what they need, providing learning opportunities, and offering
support and feedback.[]
From Competitor to Collaborator
In a hyperconnected, networked age, collaboration becomes more important than
competition. Successful leaders harness and make the most of ideas, talent, and resources from
across boundaries of all kinds. Self-directed teams and other forms of horizontal collaboration
spread knowledge and information throughout the organization.
Effective leaders also work collaboratively with suppliers, customers, governments,
universities, and other organizations. There is a growing trend within companies to think of
themselves as teams that create value jointly rather than as autonomous entities in competition
with all others.
Collaboration presents greater leadership challenges than did the old concept of
competition. Leaders first have to develop their own collaborative mindset and then create an
environment of teamwork and community that fosters collaboration and mutual support.
From Diversity Avoider to Diversity Promoter
Many of today's organizations were built on assumptions of uniformity, separation and
specialization. Homogenous groups find it easy to get along, communicate, and understand one
another. The uniform thinking that arises, however, can pea disaster in a world becoming more
multinational and diverse.
Bringing diversity into the organization is the way to attract the best human talent and
develop an organizational mindset broad enough to thrive in a multinational world. []
From Hero to Humble
Another shift is the move from celebrating the "leader-as-hero" to recognizing the hard-
working behind-the-scenes leader who quietly builds a strong enduring company by supporting
and developing others rather than touting his or her own abilities and successes.
One reason for the shift from hero to humble is that it is less and less realistic for an
individual leader to meet all the challenges a team or organization faces in a complex and rapidly
changing world. Another is that ambitious, highly self- confident, charismatic leaders have been
at the forefront of some of the ethical scandals and business failures of recent years. The hero
leader may make more risky and daring decisions, often without considering the greater good,
whereas a humble leader will seek advice and take time to think through the possible
consequences of his or her actions.
In contrast to the view of great leaders as people who have strong egos and big ambitions,
Level 5 leaders often seem shy and unpretentious and have no need to be in the limelight. They
are more concerned with the success of the team or company than with their own success. These
leaders are characterized by an almost complete lack of ego, coupled with a fierce resolve to do
what is best for the organization. They accept full responsibility for mistakes, poor results, or
failures, but they typically give credit for successes to others.
2. HOW LEADERSHIP DIFFERS FROM MANAGEMENT
Management can be defined as the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient
manner through planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and controlling organizational
resources. Both management and leadership are essential in organizations and must be integrated
effectively to lead to high performance. Draw exhibit 1.3
Providing Direction
Both leadership and management are concerned with providing direction for the
organization, but there are differences. Management focuses on establishing detailed plans and
schedules for achieving specific results, then allocating resources to accomplish the plan.
Leadership calls for creating a compelling vision of the future, setting the context within which
to view challenges and opportunities, and developing farsighted strategies for producing the
changes needed to achieve the vision. A vision is a picture of an ambitious, desirable future for
the organization or team. []
Aligning Followers
Management entails organizing structure to accomplish the plan, staffing the structure
with employees, and developing policies, procedures, and systems to direct employees and
monitor implementation of the plan. Leadership is concerned instead with communicating the
vision and developing a shared culture and set of core values that can lead to the desired future
state. Whereas the vision describes the destination, the culture and values help define the journey
toward it so that everyone is lined up in the same direction. Leadership provides learning
opportunities so people can expand their minds and abilities and assume responsibility for their
own actions. []
Building Relationships
In terms of relationships, management focuses on getting the most results out of people
so that production goals are achieved and goods and services are provided to customers in a
timely manner. Leadership, on the other hand, focuses on investing more in people so they are
energized and inspired to accomplish goals. Whereas the management relationship is based on
position and formal authority, leadership is a relationship based on personal influence and trust.
[] The role of leadership is to attract and energize people, motivating them through purpose and
challenge rather than rewards or punishments. The differing source of power is one of the key
distinctions, between management and leadership.
Developing Personal Leadership Qualities
Leadership is more than a set of skills; it relies on a number of subtle personal qualities
that are hard to see but that are very powerful. These include things like enthusiasm, integrity,
courage, and humility. Developing leadership qualities takes work. For leadership to happen,
leaders may have to undergo a journey of self-discovery and personal understanding. A top
characteristic of effective leaders is that they know who they are and what they stand for. In
addition, leaders have the courage to act on their beliefs.
True leaders tend to have open minds that welcome new ideas rather than closed minds
that criticize new ideas. Leaders listen and discern what people want and need more than they
talk to give advice and orders. Leaders are willing to be nonconformists, to disagree and say no
when it serves the larger good, and to accept nonconformity from others rather than try to
squeeze everyone into the same mindset.
Creating Outcomes
The differences between management and leadership create two differing outcomes as
illustrated at the bottom of Exhibit 1.3. (Management maintains a degree of stability,
predictability, and order through a culture of efficiency. Leadership, on the other hand, creates
change, often radical change, within a culture of agility and integrity that helps the organization
thrive over the long haul by promoting openness and honesty, positive relationships, and long-
term innovation. Leadership facilitates the courage needed to make difficult and unconventional
decisions that may sometimes hurt short-term results.
3. BEHAVIOR APPROACH
Strengths are not just personal traits but also patterns of behavior. Rather than looking at an
individual's personal traits, diverse research programs on leadership behavior have sought to
uncover the behaviors that effective leaders engage in. Behaviors can be learned more readily
than traits, enabling leadership to be accessible to all.
Ohio State Studies
The idea that leadership is reflected in behavior and not just personal traits provided a
focus for subsequent research. One early series of studies on leadership behavior was conducted
at The Ohio State University. Researchers conducted surveys to identify specific dimensions of
leader behavior. They developed the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and
administered it to employees. The analysis of ratings resulted two wide-ranging categories of
leader behavior, later called consideration and initiating structure.
Consideration describes the extent to which a leader cares about subordinates, respects
their ideas and feelings, and establishes mutual trust. Showing appreciation, listening carefully to
problems, and seeking input from subordinates regarding important decisions behaviors are all
examples of consideration behavior.
Initiating structure describes the extent to which a leader is task oriented and directs
subordinates' work activities toward goal achievement. This type of leader behavior includes
directing tasks, getting people to work hard planning, providing explicit schedules for work
activities, and ruling with an iron hand.
Leaders can show high or low levels of two key behaviors: consideration and initiating
structure. These behaviors are independent, meaning that a leader can excel in one or both. All
four combinations of these styles can be effective in leadership. [] But research that utilized
performance criteria, such as group output and productivity, showed initiating structure behavior
was rated more effective.
University of Michigan Studies
Studies at the University of Michigan took a different approach by directly comparing the
behavior of effective and ineffective supervisors. The effectiveness of leaders was determined by
productivity of the subordinate group. Initial field studies and interviews at various job sites gave
way to a questionnaire nor unlike the LBDQ, called the Survey of Organizations.
Over time, the Michigan researchers established two types of leadership behavior, each
type consisting of two dimensions. First, employee-centered leaders display a focus on the
human needs of their subordinates. Leader support and interaction facilitation are the two
underlying dimensions of employee-centered behavior. Leaders support teams, encourage
positive interactions, and reduce conflict. The employee-centered style of leadership roughly
corresponds to the Ohio State concept of consideration.
In contrast to the employee-centered leader, the job-centered leader directs activities
toward scheduling, accomplishing tasks, and achieving efficiency. Goal emphasis and work
facilitation are dimensions of this leadership behavior. By focusing on reaching task goals and
facilitating the structure of tasks, job-centered behavior approximates that of initiating structure.
Michigan studies view employee-centered and job-centered leadership as opposing styles.
Peers, not just leaders, can support, facilitate tasks and improve group performance, sharing
leadership responsibilities within the team.
In addition, while leadership behavior was demonstrated to affect the performance and
satisfaction of subordinates, performance was also influenced by other factors related to the
situation within which leaders and subordinates worked.
The Leadership Grid
Blake and Mouton of the University of Texas proposed a two-dimensional leader- ship
theory called the Leadership Grid. Leadership Grid is a two-dimensional leadership model that
describes major leadership styles based on measuring both concern for people and concern for
production. Exhibit depicts the two-dimensional model and five of the seven major leadership
styles. Draw exhibit 2.4
Team management (9, 9) is often considered the most effective style and is recommended
because organization members work together to accomplish tasks. Country club management
(1, 9) occurs when primary emphasis is given to people rather than to work outputs. Authority-
compliance management (9, 1) occurs when efficiency in operations is the dominant orientation.
Middle-of-the-road management (5, 5) reflects a moderate amount of concern for both people
and production. Impoverished management (1, 1) means the absence of a leadership philosophy;
leaders exert little effort toward interpersonal relationships or work accomplishment. []
4. HERSEY AND BLANCHARD'S SITUATIONAL THEORY
Situational theory is Hersey and Blanchard's extension of the Leadership Grid focusing on
the characteristics of followers as the important element of the situation, and consequently, of
determining effective leader behavior. The point of Blanchard's theory is that subordinates vary
in readiness level. People low in task readiness, because of little ability or training, or insecurity,
need a different leader ship style than those who are high in readiness and have good ability,
skills, confidence, and willingness to work.
Leader Style
According to the situational theory, a leader can adopt one of four leadership styles,
based on a combination of relationship (concern for people) and task (concern for production)
behavior. The appropriate style depends on the readiness level of followers. Draw exhibit 3.3
Exhibit summarizes the relationship between leader style and follower readiness. The
four leader styles are directing, coaching, supporting, and entrusting. The directing style (S1)
reflects a high concern for tasks and a low concern for people and relationships, as shown in the
exhibit. The leader provides detailed objectives and explicit instructions about how tasks should
be accomplished. The coaching style (S2) is based on a high concern for both relationships and
tasks. With this approach, the leader both provides task instruction and personal support,
explains decisions, and gives followers a chance to ask questions and gain clarity about work
tasks. The supporting style (S3) is characterized by high relationship and low task behavior. The
leader encourages participation, consults with followers, and facilitates decision making. The
fourth style, the entrusting style (S4), reflects a low concern for both tasks and relationships. This
leader provides little direction or support because complete responsibility for decisions and their
implementation is followers, turned over to followers.
Follower Readiness Contingency
The lower part of each of the four boxes in Exhibit 3.3 indicates when each leader style should
be used. The important contingency is the follower's readiness level. []
Low Readiness Contingency
When one or more followers exhibit very low levels of readiness, the leader has to use a
directing role, telling followers lovely what to do, directing them in how to do it, and specifying
timelines.[]
Moderate Readiness Contingency
A coaching leadership style works well when followers lack some skills or experience for the job
but demonstrate confidence, ability, and willingness to learn. With a coaching style, the leader
gives some direction but also explains decisions and clarifies tasks for followers rather than
merely instructing how tasks should be performed. []
High Readiness Contingency
A supporting style can be effective when followers have the necessary education, skills, and
experience but might be insecure in their abilities and need some encouragement from the leader.
The leader can guide followers' development and act as a resource for advice and assistance. []
Very High Readiness Contingency
The entrusting style of leadership can be effectively used when followers have very high levels
of ability, experience, confidence, and readiness to accept responsibility for their own task
behavior. The leader provides a general goal and sufficient authority to do the tasks as followers
see fit. Highly educated professionals such as lawyers, college professors, and social workers
would typically fall into this category. There are followers in almost every organization who
demonstrate very high readiness.
In summary, the directing style (S1) works best for followers who demonstrate very low
levels of readiness to take responsibility for their own task behavior, the coaching style (S2) is
effective for followers with moderate readiness, the supporting style (S3) works well for
followers with high readiness, and the entrusting style (S4) appropriate for followers with very
high readiness. Hersey and Blanchard's contingency model focuses only on the characteristics of
followers, not those of the larger situation. The leader should evaluate subordinates and adopt
whichever style is needed.
If one follower is at a low level of readiness, the leader must be very specific, telling
people exactly what to do, how to do it, and when. For a follower high in readiness, the leader
provides a general goal and sufficient authority to do the task as the follower sees fit. Leaders
can carefully diagnose the readiness level of followers and then apply the appropriate style.
5. HANDLING TEAM CONFLICT
As one would expect, there is an increased potential for conflict among members of Virtual
teams because of the greater chances for miscommunication and misunderstandings. Yet conflict
within virtual teams tends to occur more frequently and take longer to resolve. Cultural value
differences, little face-to-face interaction, and lack of on-site monitoring make it harder to build
team identity and commitment. Conflict refers to antagonistic interaction in which one party
attempts to block the intentions or goals of another. Effective conflict management has a positive
impact on team cohesiveness and performance High-performing teams typically have lower
levels of conflict, and the conflict is more often associated with tasks than with interpersonal
relationships. In addition, teams that reflect healthy patterns of conflict are usually characterized
by high levels of trust and mutual respect.
Types of Conflict
Two basic types of conflict that occur in teams are task conflict and relationship conflict.
Task conflict refers to disagreements among people shout the goals to be achieved or the content
of the tasks to be performed. [] Relationship conflict refers to personal incompatibility that
creates tension and feelings of personal animosity among people. For example,
In general, research suggests that task conflict can be beneficial because it leads to better
decision making and problem solving. On the other hand, relationship conflict is typically
associated with negative consequences for team effectiveness.
Balancing Conflict and Cooperation
There is evidence that mild conflict can be beneficial to teams. A healthy level of conflict
helps to prevent groupthink, as described earlier, in which people are committed to a cohesive
team that they are reluctant to express contrary opinions.
Too little conflict can decrease team performance because the team doesn't benefit from a
mix of opinions and ideas-even disagreements – that might lead to better solutions or prevent the
team from making mistakes. At the end of the spectrum, too much conflict outweighs the team’s
cooperative efforts and leads to a decrease in employee satisfaction and commitment, hurting
team performance. A moderate amount of conflict that is managed appropriately typically results
in the highest levels of team performance. Draw exhibit 10.6
Styles to Handle Conflict
Teams as well as individuals develop specific styles for dealing with conflict, based on
the desire to satisfy their own concern versus the other party's concern. A model that describes
five styles of handling conflict is in Exhibit. The two major dimensions are the extent to which
an individual is assertive versus unassertive and cooperative versus uncooperative in his or her
approach to conflict. Draw exhibit 10.7.
1. The dominating style (my way) reflects assertiveness to get one's own way and should be used
when quick, decisive action is vital on important issues or unpopular actions, such as during
emergencies or urgent cost cutting.
2. The avoiding style (no way) reflects neither assertiveness nor cooperativeness. It is
appropriate when an issue is trivial, when there is no chance of winning, when a delay to gather
more information is needed, or when a disruption would be costly.
3. The compromising style (half way) reflects a moderate amount of both assertiveness and
cooperativeness. It is appropriate when the goals on both sides are equally important, when
opponents have equal power and both sides want to split the difference, or when people need to
arrive at temporary or expedient solutions under time pressure.
4. The accommodating style (your way) reflects a high degree of cooperative ness, which works
best when people realize that they are wrong, when an issue is more important to others than to
oneself, when building social credits for use in later discussions, and when maintaining harmony
is especially important.
5. The collaborating style (our way) reflects both a high degree of assertiveness and
cooperativeness. The collaborating style enables both parties to win, although it may require
substantial bargaining and negotiation. The collaborating style is important when both sets of
concerns are too important to be compromised, when insights from different people need to be
merged into an overall solution, and when the commitment of both sides is needed for a
consensus
