….. and how they develop is critical for organizational change and innovation
Most developmental psychologists agree that what differentiates one leader from another is not so much philosophy of leadership, personality, or style of management. Rather, it’s internal "action logic"-how a leader interprets the surroundings and reacts when his or her power or safety is challenged.
Harvard Business Review had an article in the April 2005 issue about different styles of leadership:
- Opportunist – Wins any way possible, Self-oriented; manipulative; ”might makes right”. Good in emergence and in sales opportunities
- Diplomat – Avoids overt conflict, Wants to belong; obey group norms; rarely rocks the boat. Good as supportive glue within the office; helps bring people together.
- Expert – Rules by logic and expertise. Seeks rational effiency. Well suited to managerial roles; action and goal oriented.
- Achiever – Meet strategic goals. Effectively achieves goals through teams, juggles managerial duties and market demands. Well suited to managerial roles; action and goal oriented.
- Individualist – Interweaves competing personal and company action logics. Create unique structures to resolve gaps between strategy and performance- Effective in venture and consulting roles.
- Strategist – Generates organizational and personal transformations. Exercises the power of mutual inquiry, vigilance, and vulnerability for both short and long term. Effective as a transformative leader.
- Alchemist – Generates social transformation. Integrates material, spiritual and societal transformation. Good at leading society-wide transformation
Why is this important in a design and innovation context?
Several times I’ve experienced that teams lead by to much control, to heavy linear thinking, tends to be less innovative and with heavy slow-down in speed. And while managers seeks for the holy grail trying to find out how to manage chaos, a discussion is going on either the leader of tomorrow is an MBA-kind-of-guy or a more like a green-haired-art-educated-philanthropy-kind-of-type.
In “ancient” times where changes happened with slower speed the world was less complex, and Managers ability to manage a company or a process was more dependent on knowing the system, act in the system. Linear thinking.
Nowadays speed and radical change is two very important factors when leaders try to find ways to lead – dynamic complexity and the ability to cope with exactly “Chaos” is what I see is the difference between yesterday and today.
What kind of management/leadership do you think is needed – any of the above, other?
8 comments so far
Feeling comfortable with chaotic and conflicting/paradoxical situations is definitely important in the leadership roles we see today.
Working with diverse leadership styles has provided insights that I have been able to incorporate into my own practice. I’ve noticed that different styles seem to work better or worse depending on the context [people, organisational culture, innovation objectives]. I have also noticed that my own leadership style changes depending on the context. I’d therefore argue there is no one correct ‘all purpose” mode of leadership. Perhaps most leaders are in fact a composite of the seven styles above, with different emphasis depending on personality, agendas, action logics, values and perceptions.
For example, I have mostly seen myself in the past as an wholistic, inclusive, reflective manager, leading by example, promoting ownership of the process for all stakeholders. This has worked extremely effectiviely for the most part. Mor recently, I have also had cause to reflect on the value of more decisive and perhaps autocratic strategies. This is partly related to context…
In situations where individuals resist change, are not open to innovation, lack motivation and creative inspiration, the open, change ‘facilitator” model can appear to be less effective.
In such circumstances is it better to work in a consultative but more autocratic mode simply in orderr to meet goals? Possibly, because in situations like this collaboration is difficult, can cause additional problems and be overall less effective.
Such “traditional” leadership tendencies can work if tempered with insight, benevolence and vision. It is often narrowly focussed however, and leads to a similarly narrowly defined range of outcomes.
Broad inclusive, collaborative management styles are far more appropriate to the creative professions and yield synergistic results. At least that’s what I have found…
Ian – I think you’re right. Different styles will apply differently in different contexts. I’ve experienced my self that it sometimes is necessary to walk-the-talk. Having said that though I of course know – because I know my limitations, I think – that I can’t deliver into every aspect….does every “consultant” deliver into every aspect of a problem? Many would, many can’t!
All the best
Hans Henrik
Hans, I agree that it is unlikely that many will be able to impliment all the leadership styles above. I think that it would be difficult - maybe just not possible to do that.
I know I could not be comfortable in a number of the definitions outlined. Clearly the leadership style depends on the personal makeup of the individual involved. I guess that is part of the challenge of being a “leader” 
- findiing the approach that works for you and making it work…
One Again I agree with you Ian – a different angle to the discussion is if a “designer” has better capabilities in leading/navigating in the business-climate of tomorrow? Having said that it’s important for me to say that I’m not a designer my self
Any perspectives on that?
Best
Hans Henrik
You know Hans, I think designers have traditionally seen themselves as leaders in the business processes they have been involved in. However, I am not so sure they can continue to do this.
Many professions have embraced the multidisciplinary team approach much more effectively than the design profession. MBA programs appear to have incorporated the approach into their learning outcomes - alas design education programs have been slow to catch on.
Designers may now have to learn to see themselves as a part of the process, not neccessarily the leaders of the process - this new paradigm may be difficult for some to come to grips with…
Hi Ian
I think your right.
Taking the discussion a step further I think the majority of managers in our part of the world have been studying 10-20-30 years ago. They are on top in most businesses. What worries me is, that the books studied then doesn’t fit the challenges of today. What does that mean in terms of future possibilities for most companies. What’s the real challenge? Designers?
Maybe designers is a very important resource in most innovation projects, but isn’t the real challenge the battle between management and leadership?
All the best
Hans Henrik
Thoughtful links
I’ll be in San Francisco tomorrow. Today is my last day in Chicago and in this apartment. Just finishing up the relocation process and thought I’d round up the links to interesting or thoughtful posts that I’d bookmarked over the
hello all
Hans, most big companies encourages their top managers to take classes or workshops long after their school years. They’re very well prepared to take on any new challenge that rises. The real challenge is identifying the changes that these old companies has to make in order to compete with their up and comming competition.