While much of the research on leadership styles is inconclusive, it does follow some patterns. Edward E. Lawler III provides some insight that can help the newly appointed manager recognize the implications of style on leadership. Illustrates the relationship between a leader’s emphasis on performance and people orientation in a two-by-two matrix. The two-by-two matrix is used for convenience purposes. The four styles include laissez-faire, authoritarian, human relations, and participative.
- Laissez-faire leaders are basically passive. Personal initiative and risk taking are not on the agenda. As a member of this group, don’t expect too much and your group will probably not be recognized as one of the top ten. It may be difficult to make a transfer from such a group. Leaders in this quadrant won’t have an impact on the organization. Status quo is good enough.
- Authoritarian leaders generally make important decisions without input from group members. This is not a viable approach when dealing with professionals—professionals being defined as anyone with specific critical skills. While the authoritarian approach may be required at times, it needs to be used judiciously. Some people respond only when threatened in some way. Most people object to being told what to do and how to do it. However, it may be necessary at times and we need to keep in mind that an authoritarian approach does allow for quick decisions.
- Human relations-type leaders go to the extreme focusing on people orientation. People orientation cannot be allowed to reach a point where performance requirements are not met and then rationalized. Rationalizing failure to mean success rather than nonperformance merely dumbs down the organization. Human relations-oriented managers too often justify all nonperformance, thereby setting the stage for more serious problems.
- Participative leaders encourage input from group members. Participative leadership, sometimes referred to as democratic leadership, does provide an opportunity to involve members of a group. Bringing in the group to participate in the study and follow-up decision processes does generally motivate the group. However, leaders need to be cautious in carrying the approach too far. Leaders in this category often attempt to reach consensus on every issue; that’s an unrealistic approach if meeting the organization’s objectives are important. Also, can the group take the time to satisfy everybody’s wishes? People need to practice the 80/20 rule; 80 percent of whatever is needed can be accomplished in the first 20 percent of the time.
Keep in mind that the two-by-two matrix is for reference only. No manager functions in any one quadrant all the time. Any matrix only provides gross classifications. If we divide each axis by ten we can gain a better appreciation of the matrix. Performance and people orientation do not just exist at low or high. There’s a range from low to high.
As a new manager you should strive to work in the participative quadrant. As the name implies, it’s participation that counts. It’s not about reaching consensus on every issue. It is about soliciting input from the staff. It’s about working with the people in your department in a collegial style, creating an environment where their work is challenging and where opportunities exist to develop successful careers that benefit the company and the employee. These same opportunities exist in a group doing routine and repetitive work. There is always the challenge for improving some aspect of how the work is performed.
Bruch and Ghoshal Model
Research shows that only 10 percent of managers move a company forward. Such a figure would indicate that the malpractice of management requires attention. The research of Heike Bruch and Sumantra Ghoshal shows that managers squander 90 percent of their time in ineffective activities: only 10 percent of their time is spent in value-adding activities. The study further went on to show that 40 percent were distracted, 30 percent were procrastinators, 20 percent were disengaged, but only 10 percent were purposeful. Their ten-year study with a dozen large companies— including Sony, LGE Electronics, and Lufthansa—showed that too many managers are obsessed with e-mail, meeting mania, and meaningless communication instead of focusing on the real work: new products, new processes, new markets, competition, strategy, effectiveness and efficiency, and the future of the organization.
Bruch and Ghoshal classified managers they studied into four groups: the procrastinators, the disengaged, the distracted, and the purposeful.
- Procrastinators (30 percent of those studied) suffer from low levels of energy and focus. They dutifully perform assigned tasks but lack initiative or raise the level of performance. Some just cannot get started while others for various reasons feel insecure about achieving the intended results. You probably know which of your professional peers are procrastinators. The study also found that procrastination doesn’t totally depend on personality; it is influenced by organizational factors; formal structures with defined job requirements tend to increase the opportunities for procrastination while unstructured jobs tend to reduce the number of procrastinators.
- Disengaged managers (20 percent) are focused but with low levels of energy. This group is more complex. Some just don’t have the inner resources to energize themselves. Some feel that the work assigned is meaningless for them as well as the organization. These managers can also practice a form of denial: they can easily convince themselves that the problem doesn’t exist. Others often refuse to take action when needed: protecting their own kingdom takes the top priority. They can be exceedingly tense and are often plagued by anxiety, uncertainty, anger, frustration, and alienation. Organizational processes also affect the disengaged.
- Distracted managers (40 percent) are well intentioned and highly energetic, but they lack focus. Their mantra might be: Do something, no matter what, but do something. This is a group that equates motion with constructive action; don’t stop and reflect, just do something. They thrive on unproductive busyness. The functional silos breed the distracted manager. They tend to overcommit, become involved in too many projects, and spend most of their time fighting fires. These are the people for whom adding value means keeping people busy. These are the people who create the "make work." The group of distracted managers grows when highly aggressive managers fail to adequately reflect on their actions.
- Purposeful managers (10 percent) are highly energetic and highly focused: They approach their work from a different perspective. The primary characteristic of purposeful managers is their ability to set the agenda. They extend their freedom to act, manage their bosses’ expectations, find ways to accumulate the resources, develop relationships with influential people, and systematically build their competencies to broaden their ability to act. They are not constrained by outside forces or influences such as bosses, other managers, job descriptions, or salaries. They basically define the work and manage the internal and external environment. They set the agenda. These managers put in more effort than their peers, are more aware of the global environment in which they work, select the battles in which they engage, welcome opportunities to pursue new goals, and fully understand the value of time. They make time to think.