Last year I wrote a post called "The Death of Command and Control" based on a number of articles proclaiming the end of the so-called "command-and-control" style of leadership. Quickly, "command-and-control" or C2 as it is occasionally called refers to a style of leadership frequently associated with the military. The "command" refers to the process of directing or issuing orders, while the "control" refers to the process of monitoring and enforcing compliance with these directives and orders. It is a more top-down, hierarchical, authoritarian/autocratic style of leadership.
In my post, I mentioned an article by Kathy Miller Perkins in Forbes magazine ("Shift your leadership style: Guidelines for agile leadership") that advocated for a more situational or context-specific style of leadership, in which leaders adapt their style to the specific requirements of a given situation or problem to be solved. Perkins writes, ""Steering through the complex waters of modern leadership requires more than a single, go-to approach. It demands the skill to adapt swiftly, changing your leadership style on the fly to tackle constantly shifting conditions and challenges."
Perkins ended her article by writing, "Leadership in this century is not about clinging to a single, comfortable style but about developing the situation awareness and flexibility to switch between approaches as the context demands." Most leadership experts would agree that there are certain situations that demand a more authoritative style of leadership, such as "command-and-control." I ended my post by writing, "Rather than being dead, "Command and Control" leadership is here to stay, even if used relatively sparingly and for specific situations or contexts.
With all of this in mind, I read a thought-provoking article in Fast Company with the title, "Is command-and-control leadership back in fashion? And was it ever a good idea?" The article was co-written by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, the Chief Science Officer at the recruiting firm, Russell Reynolds. Edmondson and Chamorro-Premuzic opens their article by writing, "Open almost any newspaper, scroll through LinkedIn, or listen to the latest business podcast, and you will encounter a familiar theme: the return of the strong leader. From 'wartime CEOs' to hard-charging founders and authoritarian coaching styles in elite sports, and the virtues of 'hands-on' leaders, there is a growing narrative that command-and-control leadership is not only back, but necessary. The appeal is intuitive. When the world feels volatile and uncertain, decisiveness offers comfort, and centralized authority promises clarity."
The Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud once argued that we all have a tendency to idealize strong leaders, whose decisiveness, authority, and "take-charge" attitude can lower our anxiety and provide a sense of comfort in a volatile and uncertain world. Freud argued that in groups regress psychologically and take on the personality of the leader through a process of transference. Individuals in the group tend to idealize strong, charismatic, self-confident, decisive leaders, because that is the way in which they would like to be viewed. And, as Edmondson and Chamorro-Premuzic suggest, "uncertainty increases our preference for certainty," so that when we groups encounter uncertainty and ambiguity, they tend to gravitate towards leaders who are confident and sure of themselves.
Unfortunately, decades of research also strongly suggest that authoritarian and autocratic leadership tends to suppress initiative, decrease motivation, and erode a climate of psychological safety, all of which can lead to lower employee satisfaction and engagement, lower productivity, and lower retention. As Edmondson's research has found, "cultures that discourage dissent and concentrate decision-making power tend to suppress information, limit experimentation, and increase the risk of strategic error. By contrast, environments characterized by psychological safety, leader humility, and distributed input are more likely to foster innovation, adaptability, and sustained performance."
Edmondson and Chamorro-Premuzic have found that the most effective leaders "do not necessarily decentralize authority, but they do decentralize input." These leaders actively seek input from their teams, who provide a diversity of perspectives, opinions, and even dissenting views. However, these same leaders retain responsibility for the final decision. They created a 2x2 matrix of leadership styles with two key dimensions - decision process and ownership (ranging from non-consultative to consultative) and the source of authority and input (ranging from centralized to distributed, or decentralized):
There is an important difference between the leadership style in the top-left quadrant, in which authority is centralized and the decision process is non-consultative (i.e. "Command and Control") and the leadership style in the top-right quadrant, in which authority remains centralized but the decision process is consultative. Whereas the "Command and Control" style of leadership is directive and autocratic, in which decisions are made unilaterally at the top with very little input gathered from others, the "Decisive but Inclusive" style of leadership is authoritative (leaders still retain authority to make the decisions) and open (consultative, collaborative). These leaders actively engage their teams and seek their input, differing perspectives, and expertise. These leaders even encourage active dissent, in order to minimize groupthink and improve the decision-making process.
The least ideal style of leadership is found in the bottom-left quadrant, in which authority is de-centralized and decision-making is non-consultative. The bottom-right quadrant, known as "Participatory Leadership" can be effective in certain situations and contexts, particularly with knowledge-intensive settings with skilled teams. However, the need to generate consensus here can slow down the decision-making process.
Edmondson and Chamorro-Premuzik emphasize that there will always be situations in which one style of leadership works better than the others (with the notable exception of "Leaderless Chaos" which is likely not ideal in any setting). They state that "balance is key" - the most effective leaders are able to flex back and forth between the three leadership styles, depending upon the specific needs of the situation or scenario.
Edmondson and Chamorro-Premuzik conclude by stating, "Whatever style or model leaders employ, it will always be easier for them to get things done and have a positive long-lasting impact if they are capable of bringing people along, motivating them to change their beliefs, and inspire rather than force them to action...Effective leadership in complex systems relies less on formal authority and more on influence. It requires persuasion rather than command, curiosity rather than certainty, and a disciplined focus on long-term consequences rather than short-term control."
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato reportedly once said, "Leadership is not the power to command but the courage to serve." It's not easy being a leader in today's society. Leadership requires courage - courage to be confident, yet humble at the same time. Leadership requires the courage to be willing to listen to different and even dissenting views and perspectives, yet being willing to make the final decision at the same time. The best leaders are balanced in their approach, and versatile and adaptable. They do not default to a single leadership style, but rather adapt their approach between different styles to balance control and inclusion as circumstances require.
No comments:
Post a Comment