An attempt at taking your team from ordinary to extraordinary is only done when you understand and embrace the difference between management and leadership. There is a vast difference between managers and leaders even though we use the terms interchangeably. Managers are facilitators of their team’s success. A manager makes sure everyone on their team is well trained and has everything needed to be successful and ready to move on to the next level. Managers want their team members to be recognized for great performance and to be able to solve their own problems.
Leaders on the other hand, can be anyone that has a special talent for creative thinking. Someone who has experience in a certain aspect of the business or project that can be proved useful to the manager and the team. A leader will prove their capabilities by strengths, not titles.
In a specific study on the subject of kinetic leadership is, Daniel Goleman’s Leadership That Gets Results, a 2000 Harvard Business Review study. Goleman and his team did a study which observed 3,000 middle-level managers. The goal of the study was to discover specific leadership behaviors and determine their effect on the corporate climate. They also wanted to determine each leadership style’s effect on profitability.
Overall, the study found that a manager’s leadership style made up 30% of the company’s bottom-line profitability. So, with that in mind, we can see how much leadership styles play a role in a company’s profit. Optimizing manager leadership style vastly improves a company and their bottom-line profitability.
Goldman uncovered six leadership styles among the managers he studied. Below are the six styles and a brief analysis on the effects each style had on the corporate climate:
1. The Pacesetting leader expects and displays excellence and direction. This style works best when the team is already motivated and highly skilled. This works well when the leader needs quick results. However, if this style is over-used it can overwhelm team members and throw innovation out the door.
2. The affiliative leader creates emotional bonds and a sense of belonging and importance among the team. This is the “people come first” style. This style works best in times of stress, and when needing to rebuild trust comes into play. This style however, should not be used frequently due to a risk of an abundance of praise leading to mediocre performance and lack of direction.
3. The authoritative leader moves the team towards a common vision and focuses mainly on an end goal, leaving the means up to the individuals. This style works best if the team is in need of a new vision or end goal. This is not a best fit style if the leader is working with a team of experts who know more than the leader.
4. The coaching leader prepares people for the future. This style works best if the leaders wants to help teammates be successful in their overall performance. This style is least effective when the teammates do not listen and are unwilling to learn.
5. The coercive leader strives for immediate compliance. This leader has a “do as I say” mentality. This style is most effective in times of panic and emergencies. This style can help control a teammate who is troubled when every other tactic has failed. This style should be avoided if it is alienating people and jeopardizing flexibility.
6. The democratic leader develops an overall consensus through participation. This style is most effective when the leader needs the team to believe they have a say in the decision making process, or fresh ideas to work towards, goals and plans. This is not an effective style when it comes to emergencies because teammates may not be well informed on the situation.
The basic and overall consensus is to understand and fully utilize these leadership styles and attempt at each of them, while developing strategies for when each style is necessary in any given situation.