The Leadership Spectrum

Leaders don't often plug nicely into a single hole.  In my experience they operate along a range, sometimes achieving excellence and other times noterity.  I developed the idea of a spectrum from the numerous articles I've read over the course of school and in the Army. 

The leader categories, Transformational, Transactional, Laissez faire and Management by Exception are taken from the transformational leadership model.  I feel they best capture the basic levels most leaders operate from.

Management by exception is the leader who only finds fault.  There is no attempt at concensus building, they are often micromanagers who are focused mainly on themselves. 

Laissez faire leaders are those who provide little to no guidance.  In my experience these are "scalded dogs".  Leaders who don't give guidance, make few decisions and put off the decisions they do make till the last moment.

Transactional Contingent leaders are the most common.  These leaders focus on the carrot and stick approach.  While it can be very pleasing to operate for a contingent boss they are not going to change the world. 

Transformational leaders are about changing the world.  These are the charasmatic leaders who define organizations.  They have the ability to communicate vision in a way that makes others excited.  They don't need a carrot or stick.

Management by exception could also be called Toxic.  These leaders can achieve goals and look good to thier bosses but at a cost.  Their teams seldom function well or autonomously.  The ultimate goal is to make the leader look good. 

Contrasted to transformational leaders who are in fact mentors.  They develop teams and share their successes with thier teams.  They impact the organization for years, even after they have left. 

Leadership is a process.  Where do your processes place you in the spectrum?

Comunication and the Fundemental Attribution Error

Chip and Dan Heath wrote an amazing book Switch.  In which they describe a phenomenom known as the fundemental attribution error; when leaders assume thier followers are lazy, incompetent or otherwise disinclined to follow direction.  While there are certainly those whom these labels apply to it is certainly not true for the majority of your employees.  This error usually comes into play when a new policy or procedure is being implimented, a new time sheet, billing protocol or other change in the status quo.  Rather than complying your staff seems to be stalling, making errors and otherwise not meeting the new standard.  Many leaders will make snap judgements.

The problem is most likley with the leader, the new process is poorly defined, the directions or expectations are unclear.  The leader has failed to communicate the process properly.  As leaders the single most important thing we can do is to communicate effectively.  We often forget that we see a bigger picture than our followers.  We have access to information that they do not.  Therefore we can make connections they cannot.  As leaders we must remember that communication is a two way street, that in addition to sending information we must also recieve and process information from both higher and lower. As leaders we must listen, critically analyze and react to what our subordinates say with the same intensity that we lisen to our own leaders.  Our job is to eliminate ambigutiy, share a common vision and in doing so build concensus. 

The Heath brothers list numerous ways to help overcome the fundemental attribution error; all deal with steps leaders can do to simplify the process.  I believe they miss one very important piece of the solution; communicating need.  Working in health care I deal with doctors, nurses, medical assistants, EMTs and administrative people.  The vast majority of my healthcare providers are focused on providing great care.  They truly care about thier patients and understand the importance of patient care documentation.  However, when it comes to other paperwork many tend to fall short.  They often view these extra demands on thier time as detracting from thier work, patient care.  While administrators see this paperwork as being crucial to the growth and development of the organization.  Leadership must explain better the value added to the extra work.

For example as a new platoon leader I found numerous problems with the maintenance of my ambulances.  The medics were going though the motions of maintaining thier vehicles.  After all they were "medics not mechanics".  After numerous issues, I finally came up with a solution and a phrase.  The manual for maintaining the vehicles was confusing.  So we developed a simple check list and required an initial by each point on the checklist by the medic doing maintenance.  We made the required steps easy to understand and comply with.  I then tied why vehicle maintenance was important to the medical mission with a simple question, "how many patients can a deadlines ambulance evacuate per hour?"  0.0 patients per hour.  This actually had an effect on most of the medics and I started seeing less maintenance issues.  The problem wasn't that my medics were lazy or incompetent.  The problem was that it wasn't clear to them why a job was important.  They viewed maintenance as a detractor from their primary mission of patient care not as an enabler. When I took the time to communicate with the medics I gained concensus.

As leaders we must communicate effectively both up and down.  Rather than seeing non-compliance as a lack of motivation or ability we should rather assess if we have effectively communicated first.

Leadership vs. Management

Too often are the terms management and leadership used interchangeably, when in fact they are diametrically opposed.  They are the ying and yang of accomplishment.  A leader is a chaotic force within an organization, creating change and looking for new ways to do business.  Managers focus on stability and routine.  The manager uses stability as the standard for good performance. 

To be successful an organization requires managers and leaders.  Without leaders any enterprise is doomed to failure, it will not adapt, it will not learn new lessons.  Managers favor stability, familiar over change.  However, an organization of leaders cannot thrive either.  Constant change creates ambiguity, uncertainty.  Employees cannot thrive if they are required to learn a new way to do thier jobs everyday.  There must exist a balance between those forces that change and improve with those that embrace the status quo.

I do believe that one can transition between being a manager and a leader.  In fact in many situations one may be required to act as a manager/leader.  Improving thier organization within the constraints of thier manager's guidance. 

Leadership and the Led

   As I went through Grad school and worked I came to a realization; that Leadership is a compact between the leader and the led.  Each party owes a duty to the other; the leader owes it to the led to be responsive to the needs of the led.  In exchange for following the led have the right to expect that thier leaders be individuals of worthy of the trust they have for thier leaders.  Contrawise the led have a duty to follow thier leaders and trust that they are doing the right thing for both the led and their employer. 

    Great leaders seem to realize this implicitly.  Poor leadership occurs when the leadership fails to meet its obligations.  Examples include the leader who focuses solely on themselves, the leader who doesn't care about thier employees. 

Emotional Intelligence

Leaders are usually considered to be intelligent, that is capable of solving problems.  As we train and develop our leaders we tend to focus on technical problem solving skills, especially at the lower levels of leadership.  How do we cut costs, improve our product or service.  Leadership is seen as a function deviod of emotion. 

The problem with focusing on leadership solely as a function is that we forget is that leaders should be motivating thier people.  People have emotions that often impact how they perform.  From this concept comes the idea of emotional intelligence, or the leader that understands how thier actions affect thier subordinates.  If we think of leadership in terms of self control and as a process then we see the importance of emotional intelligence.

 Emotional intelligence isn't about trying to make everyone happy.  It is about creating a full open communication process between the leader and the led.  It is about understanding how our actions impact our followers.  It is about knowing our people and ourselves.  It is a tool which we can use to better communicate, understand and lead our people. 

Being emotionally intelligent requires leaders to learn themselves and thier people.  Great leaders inspire others through thier actions and vision.  They communicate with thier followers and to truly inspire the leader must be able to read the emotions of thier followers.  Am I exciting them or boring them, is my delivery having the desired impact. The ability to read is crucial or you risk being that manager who just doesn't get us.  Is out of touch with reality. 

Next the leader must understand the impact of emotion; why do people react the way they do.  Why are your followers suddenly disgruntled?  Why are they angry?  Is there apathy?  How then do we as leaders engage our followers, create concensus and resolve issues?  Not every decision can be popular, but we can engage our followers in a way that acknowledges thier needs and feelings. 

Finally as leaders we need to exercise self control, manage our own emotions and understand how emotions impacts us.  Think of the leader who explodes when confronted with bad news.  The leader who is so in love with a project that they can't imagine abandoning it.  The leader who is unhappy with thier current situation.  These leaders create barriers between themselves and thier employees.  Who wants to deliver the boss bad news when you know its going to "set him off".  Are your employees more likely to tell you what they think you want to hear than the truth. 

Being an emotionally intelligent leader means you understand your employees needs and feelings.  By communicating in an emotionally intelligent way we can communicate more effectively and create positive dialoge.  Last we can use emotional intelligence to effect to control ourselves and ensure as leaders we are doing the right thing.

Leadership defined

Bookstores and libraries contain entire sections on leadership.  In my studies I've found as many definitions for leadership as there are authors defining it.  I've come to appreciate the simplest definition I've heard as the best.  In JROTC a retired Green Beret told me, leadership is self-control.  At the time I memorized the answer for the test and moved on.  Later as we started adventure training, learning to rappel, white water raft and the like we learned to relax to the point of self control.  Something I again learned to answer the test questions but didn't really focus on. 

The Army has defined leadership as a process by which one motivates others to accomplish a mission or goal (I'm paraphrasing as the exact verbiage changes but the intent remains).  In grad school we learned several definitions, but all similar to the Army's. Leadership is about influencing others and achieving goals.

As the semester progressed we analyzed leadership traits.  How does a leader motivate or influence a group?  Why are some leaders successful.  We even discussed the differences between leaders and managers.  Cross-cultural leadership was another topic of much discussion; what do different groups want or need from their leaders. 

Among the many traits we expect from leaders there are some core traits:
>Integrity
>Fairness
>Intelligence
>Confidence

With the recent market failures much has been made of the integrity of the CEO's.  How can they justify huge bonuses with poor performance?  Are they fair?  Are they ethical?  Are they acting intelligently could lower salaries and fewer bonuses help their companies bottom lines or save jobs?  Recent actions of the GSA in Las Vegas and other poor decisions have cost "leaders" in the GSA their jobs and reputations.

As I've contemplated the facts of these numerous events I've reviewed my definitions of leadership and now find the meaning to the simple definition of leadership; leadership is self control.  Granted I am not a CEO, nor a senior executive with the GSA but I have been a leader.  Self control has been my guide, often unconsciously since my youth.  Had these "leaders" exercised self-control and not self/group gratification things might have turned out differently. 

During my final semester of my Health care Admin course we learned how Warren Buffet accepted a $1 compensation to save a failing company.  He could have easily demanded a multi-million dollar contract but didn't.  In exercising constraint (granted he was a multi-billionaire so he could afford it) he set a standard and role modeled behavior. 

A leader must first learn to control themselves before attempting to control others.  To be a leader of integrity and fairness you must be able to control yourself first. 

Background

My first lesson's in leadership came at an early age.  I enrolled in something called JROTC where I met two men who would have a lasting impact on my life.  I graduated high school and enlisted in the Army, went on to become a medic and found myself in various leadership roles.  From there I went to college and eventually into the Tennessee Army National Guard and became an officer.  I went back to school and earned two Masters (Healthcare Admin and an MBA).