Last September I wrote a post on whether it's good to be a leader, a manager, or both (see "Leader, Manager, or Both?"). I concluded with the statement that in order to be the most effective, an executive needed to be a good leader AND a good manager ("It's not an or question, it's an and one."). Similarly, in a post from May, 2023, I claimed that at any given time, a leader may need to assume the role of player, manager, or coach (see "Player, Manager, Coach"). The management literature is replete with definitions of leadership - someone a lot smarter and wiser than I am once claimed that there are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define it.
I think it is very hard to come up with a perfect definition of leadership, so instead I usually fall back and describe what is meant by leadership with a quote. The ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, "A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves." Former U.S. Senator (and NBA Hall of Famer) Bill Bradley said, "Leadership is unlocking people's potential to become better." And finally, going back to the leadership versus management theme, management consultant and leadership guru Peter Drucker said, "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."
There are perhaps just as many descriptions of different styles of leadership. However, in my opinion they all boil down to three archetypes, first described by Kurt Lewin, Ronald Lippitt, and Ralph White, based upon leadership experiments that they conducted at the University of Iowa in the 1930's. What may surprise you is that their study subjects were not corporate executives, military generals, or government leaders, but rather ten-year-old boys who were formed into different hobby clubs. Each club was led by an individual who was instructed to use one of three styles of leadership - autocratic (authoritarian), democratic, or laissez-faire:
Autocratic (Authoritarian): The leader makes decisions unilaterally, without much input from team members. The leader has control over all decisions and expects subordinates to follow orders without question.
Democratic (Participative): The leader involves team members in decision-making. There is a focus on collaboration and discussion, with the leader considering the opinions and suggestions of others before making a final decision.
Laissez-Faire Leadership (Delegative): The leader takes a hands-off approach and gives team members the freedom to make their own decisions. The leader provides minimal guidance, and employees are trusted to complete tasks independently.
The three leadership styles were experimentally manipulated so that Lewin and his colleagues could determine their impact on the other individuals in the club. Clubs with democratic leaders generally showed higher levels of creativity, satisfaction, and productivity compared to the other two styles. Although the clubs led by autocratic leaders initially appeared to be more effective, that specific style of leadership often resulted in resentment and decreased motivation among the members of the club. Finally, the clubs led by laissez-faire leaders tended to perform the worst. Of interest, the individuals in the clubs with autocratic leaders often became aggressive towards each other (can anyone say Lord of the Flies?).
At the end of the day, Lewin's leadership experiments laid the foundation for subsequent research on different styles of leadership and the development of different models of leadership. In the next few posts, I'd like to explore some of these different models of leadership. I think you will agree with me that, in regards to the different theories on leadership, there are two principal and consistent themes. First, all of the different leadership styles essentially are based upon the three styles first described by Kurt Lewin and his colleagues. They are akin to the primary colors, which can be mixed and matched to generate all of the other colors. Second, there is no universally accepted "best" style of leadership that works for every situation. Instead, the most effective leaders need to rely upon all three styles, depending on the specific needs or context of the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment