Picking good leaders

In the Harvard Business Review article "Leadership That Gets Results," author Daniel Goleman says that of the six major leadership styles, four generally help improve the climate for success in organizations, while two tend to worsen the factors that affect performance. How well do you know effective leadership styles? Try this quiz:

You're the CEO of a large planning, community development and urban design consulting firm, and you have to pick a new vice president to lead the consulting divisions. You want to choose from one of six managers in the firm.

This is a new position created to address several problems in the firm: low morale, unproductive bickering among staff and high turnover. All of these factors are reducing productivity, increasing errors, and generating additional management costs.

All the candidates have similar experience and skills and manage similar groups and budgets. The key differences among them are as follows (candidates are identified by geometric symbols):

• Triangle employs a traditional, field marshal style of management. When Triangle is asked to sum up his/her leadership style, Triangle says: "Do what I tell you."
• Circle leads by encouraging staff to move toward a vision - for the project, organization, or client. Circle's one-sentence approach to leadership: "Come with me."
• Square is the kind of person who tries to get as much input and feedback from as many people as possible. Square's one-sentence approach to leadership: "People come first."
• Rhombus uses a democratic approach to decision-making by working to get consensus. Rhombus' one-sentence approach to leadership: "What do you think?"
• Oval, the firm's most productive employee, believes leaders should model the behavior they want from others. Rhombus' one-sentence approach to leadership: "Do what I do."
• Rectangle spends significant time sitting with his staff in their offices and coaching them. Rectangle's one-sentence approach to leadership: "Try this."

Which two would be the wrong type of leaders for your company's situation?

You probably figured out that Triangle would be a bully who would drive away your best employees, and that Circle would be more likely to inspire staff to perform to a higher level. And Square's affiliative approach - relying on mediation and promoting harmony - could enhance performance by managing tensions better.

Let's make this more interesting. Triangle, Circle and Square drop out as candidates. Who's the best candidate: Rhombus, Oval or Rectangle?

Were you thinking Oval? Oval is the most productive employee. Maybe Oval can set the pace for the managers, who in turn can do the same for front-line staff?

Sorry, wrong choice. Under most conditions, the "pace-setter" actually hurts the climate for performance. There's nothing wrong with being good, and highly-motivated staff can benefit from a manager they can look up to. Unfortunately, the pace-setter will likely expect that staff see problems and issues the same way he or she does - and then take over when the staff member takes a different approach. This tends to cause more friction - especially where the staff are diverse - and demoralize employees by making them feel inept or patronized.

Pace-setters can be successful - if they also adopt the visionary, relationship-building, democratic and coaching styles that Goleman says enhance organizational climate. The most effective leaders use a combination of styles - including, in extremely rare occasions, a coercive style.

I suspect the problems with the pace-setters start with the people who hire them. Too many people see production work, management and leadership as a simple progression. You know: Work hard for a few years, then become a manager. Work harder, move into a leadership position. Those who see work this way may not know that production work, management and leadership requires different skill sets. Being the smartest person in world in demographic analysis does not help you to motivate underperforming staff.

Another problem is that pace-setters believe, correctly, that they are being rewarded for their production skills. In their eyes, people skills are not as important as "getting the job done." As a result, staff become extra arms and legs of a favored production person. Would you rather be a whole person or an appendage? That's why pace-setters tend to demoralize their staff.

In knowledge economy industries such as urban planning, community and economic development and architecture, demoralizing workers is like putting ammonia in your machines instead of fuel.

Summary: With a few exceptions, pace-setters can do more harm than good in organizations. The people who pick leaders should be more familiar with the pros and cons of each leadership style. Pace-setters who master various leadership styles can succeed.

For more, read "Leadership That Gets Results," by Daniel Goleman, Harvard Business Review, March 2000. Click here to buy article

By the way, for those of you, like me, who can be skeptical of leadership articles: Goleman based his ideas on the findings of a study of nearly 3,900 executives worldwide.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Do you have a professional development tip you would like to share? Have a question that you would like to see answered here? Please send it to Leo at vazquezl@rutgers.edu