“To bring out the best in others, leadership must match the development level of the person being led”. – Dr Ken Blanchard
By Argenis Angulo & Esther Law
I assure you that it is not more of the same. Leadership as a human phenomenon has been widely studied. Some for their interests, some out of scientific curiosity, and others in the desire to understand how it works to form more and better leaders who generate more and better results on a planet that at times seems condemned to crises.
Hence, the theories, models, methodologies, secrets, keys, guides, manuals, and leadership scripts available in today’s world present a serious challenge: they contradict each other.
While some models impacted by romanticism defend with extraordinary and beautiful arguments the need to promote, develop, and promote democratic and participatory leadership models, others, with equally super powerful arguments, defend the thesis that it is in the autocratic and directive where the success and efficiency of any leadership that is truly measured by results resides.
The most complex thing is that in both theoretical poles, we find cases, testimonies and examples of success, as well as research and formulas developed from such experiences, with thousands and thousands of disciples putting them into practice, on one side and the other. And indeed, many are successful. But many more are not.
Why? As is well known, life itself does not take place in extremes, even if it seems that way, in blacks or whites, but rather has a very wide range of greys that are nothing more than rich possibilities.
There are many more options than unbreakable autocratic leadership or flexible democratic leadership. And that is very good.
I have just added an attribute to each style … I have described autocratic leadership as unbreakable, and who would not want to be unbreakable? And I have attributed to democratic leadership the power of flexibility, and who would not want to be, especially in times of so much change?
Do you see the contradictions? In the search for a more realistic model, the ‘Situational Leadership’ model was introduced several decades ago by the author Kenneth Blanchard, better known as Ken Blanchard, with whom I had the opportunity to share in Denver, Colorado, USA, about 10 years ago.
Blanchard basically suggests that there are at least four different and necessary leadership styles that must be managed depending on two variables, which we can define as the situation or circumstance, the first: and as the human team and its maturity, the second.
Basically, he suggests that depending on the situation and the maturity of the team, the ideal leadership style to use must be defined. With them, he generates a theoretical revolution: because it shows that there is no specific model that is ideal to develop.
Now then … It is not enough either … Because each person has different stories, experiences, skills, knowledge and paths for the development of their leadership.
For example, in the same work team, there may be two people, at the same level in the organisational structure, with the same range of responsibilities, who have to develop their leadership in diametrically different ways.
For example: one must learn to be more daring and direct to address the conflicts that naturally arise in any organisation, while the other, and simultaneously, must learn to be more restrained, careful and prudent in order to look after relationships.
Given this, in the face of such contradictions, what can the leader of human strategy, resources or human capital of the organisation be?
Leadership is a personal path.
Although talking about leadership seems to imply talking about a team of those led, ‘subordinated’ to the influence of the one with formal or moral authority, the truth is that the phenomenon of leadership has its basis in strict individuality.
Therein lies another enormous contradiction: you cannot lead another if you are not capable of leading yourself. This implies recognising the individual growth and evolution of leadership competence, which begins with understanding who we are and where we come from.
Three steps
If, based on the contradictions revealed here, you wish to embark on your particular path of growth, there are three premises that you must assume, which are decisions that enable you to develop your leadership skills.
1. Broaden your view
Read, study, observe and learn from every one of the leadership styles that are possible for you, or to which you are exposed.
Discover how each one has its benefits and its challenges. Do not underestimate any of them. I assure you that all of them have a quality or attribute that is desirable for any leader.
Explore their ways of approaching a situation and analyse their reasons for doing it in such a way. In addition to the available literature, I assure you that you have success stories around you, of leaders who, in your community, at work or even in your family, can become teachers.
Evaluate how they do it, and above all, what their results are. Try not to judge, but to observe like the best apprentice.
2. Recognise your style
Once you have expanded the range of possibilities regarding the different styles that exist, and how all can be effective to a certain extent, with the awareness that none is good or bad, but that it depends on the situation and/or the team you have, then you are ready to go outside yourself to observe yourself, and thus, from the outside, understand and recognise what your most predominant style is, which one you activate most in different circumstances …
Your particular style may be more democratic, more autocratic, more inspiring, more flexible, or you can add the attribute or adjective that you consider best describes it. That is, you do not need to fit into the theory, but on the contrary, you can draw on the theory to write your model.
3. Challenge your behaviour
This step can be the most challenging and the most powerful at the same time. Once you have recognised your style, identify which one is the most different from yours, the one you are not comfortable with, and ask yourself what is good about that way of leading.
Once you have it clear, the exercise is the following: decide to practice it for a day. Challenge yourself to use their criteria.
Decide how someone with that style would decide, speak like him or her; then, at the end of the day, observe how you felt, how it went, and what you learned from that other role.
Leadership mastery is not in following a model, it is in challenging yourself until you can explore the different styles and activate them when the situation requires it.
Understanding it and undertaking it will make you discover an incalculable power, recognising who you are and what distinguishes you, and expanding your possibilities and those of the environment that you have the possibility of impacting. You will be amazed!
The views expressed here are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune.
