Leadership @F-L-O-W

LeadStyle @F-L-O-W

Leadership Styles @F-L-O-W
During my Year-Long Guidance Program in 2013, topics like LeadStyle are designed as a part of a Leadership University Certificate Program for Emerging Leaders. Each of these topics will have a free introductory session, as well as 4 discovery sessions, approximately 40 minutes in length. To register for the Year-Long Program and get all the discovery sessions at a discounted fee, click here.

Leadership Styles @F-L-O-W is designed to introduce leadership style issues into the mix with role design, and organizational structure.

The Elements of Leadership Style are critical to provide leaders and role designers with accurate descriptions of the type of behavior that is likely to be motivated by the leader’s inborn attributes.
We know that leadership style is a heavy predictor of organizational climate and that the path to results, as well as well-being goes through leadership style.
It’s also clear from coaching leaders for more than 2 decades that leadership style issues govern how followers perceive leaders, and in our current approach @F-L-O-W, how leaders can both be scaffolded in this process where their motivated styles are going to create problems for the organizations and the people in them, as well as how to teach leaders to look for and appreciate/scaffold these natural emerging styles, which are more than likely directly correlated to inborn traits.

"Management styles are characteristic ways of making decisions and relating to subordinates. Management styles can be categorized into two main contrasting styles, autocratic and permissive. Management styles are also divided in the main categories of autocratic, paternalistic, and democratic. This idea was further developed by Robert Tannenbaum and Warren H. Schmidt (1958, 1973), who argued that the style of leadership is dependent upon the prevailing circumstance; therefore leaders should exercise a range of management styles and should deploy them as appropriate." – Wiki

In recent times, we have discovered that leadership styles are not as plastic and situational as people think, or have thought and due to inborn attributes, we grow to prefer particular kinds of engagement styles because they work for us…even though a case could be made that they don’t work for every situation.

When we begin to tie motivational systems which are present in leadership engagement, particular styles emerge which under Pareto distribution make up a network of effects that are interconnected through power law distribution, where a few become MORE important and influential, and a larger number become less important, although available in some cases, but more than likely not as dense in the ways in which they are used (quality) and as frequent (quantity).

Each situation has a style of combination of styles which are more likely to be matched.  However, leaders because of who they are, are not always able to call up these styles, like one would ask for a particular club in a golf bag in a particular scenario.

There are several things that become important:

1) Who are you, in relation to your inherent styles?

2) What styles are called for in larger quantities to create fit in your role?

3) Which styles are most likely to fit into particular situations better than others.

4) How do you know how to recognize the styles and the need for styles in particular situations?

6) When is using a particular style going to create a lot of leverage for a little bit of investment?

7) Why are leadership styles important to engagement?

This inquiry is what Leadership Engagement, as it relates to styles of leadership is about.

Categories of Managerial Leadership Styles have emerged through various systems and research vehicles over time and Leadership Engagement Styles @F-L-O-W is no different.  In fact, by standing on the shoulders of many proven systems, we can take advantage of the various opportunities and resilience created when fit between style and situation are closely aligned.

6 Leadership Styles were listed by the research from David McClelland over a period of more than 50 years, both in motivation and in leadership.

Visionary. This style is most appropriate when an organization needs a new direction. Its goal is to move people towards a new set of shared dreams. “Visionary leaders articulate where a group is going, but not how it will get there – setting people free to innovate, experiment, take calculated risks,” write Mr. Goleman and his coauthors.

Coaching. This one-on-one style focuses on developing individuals, showing them how to improve their performance, and helping to connect their goals to the goals of the organization. Coaching works best, Mr. Goleman writes, “with employees who show initiative and want more professional development.” But it can backfire if it’s perceived as “micromanaging” an employee, and undermines his or her self-confidence.

Affiliative. This style emphasizes the importance of team work, and creates harmony in a group by connecting people to each other. Mr. Goleman argues this approach is particularly valuable “when trying to heighten team harmony, increase morale, improve communication or repair broken trust in an organization.” But he warns against using it alone, since its emphasis on group praise can allow poor performance to go uncorrected. “Employees may perceive,” he writes, “that mediocrity is tolerated.”

Democratic. This style draws on people’s knowledge and skills, and creates a group commitment to the resulting goals. It works best when the direction the organization should take is unclear, and the leader needs to tap the collective wisdom of the group. Mr. Goleman warns that this consensus-building approach can be disastrous in times of crisis, when urgent events demand quick decisions.

Pacesetting. In this style, the leader sets high standards for performance. He or she is “obsessive about doing things better and faster, and asks the same of everyone.” But Mr. Goleman warns this style should be used sparingly, because it can undercut morale and make people feel as if they are failing. “Our data shows that, more often than not, pacesetting poisons the climate,” he writes.

Commanding. This is classic model of “military” style leadership – probably the most often used, but the least often effective. Because it rarely involves praise and frequently employs criticism, it undercuts morale and job satisfaction. Mr. Goleman argues it is only effective in a crisis, when an urgent turnaround is needed. Even the modern military has come to recognize its limited usefulness. – http://guides.wsj.com

These categories of styles are important to influencing climate.

By looking at more than 100 years of motivation research and studying leadership behaviors as they emerge from a style, I have identified more than 16 critical motivational styles that are inherently motivated by intrinsic motives.

You can register for this program beginning now, up and until April 4, 2013 for a fee of $197, and $297 afterwards. To get this program and 9 other programs for a "certificate" price, see our 2013 offer here.

More Info @F-L-O-W
Disclaimer  |  Terms of Service  |  Earnings Disclaimer  |  Privacy Notice  |  Contact Support Buy the Book