Chris Chittenden wrote:
"The first thing to realize is that leadership is not a position but a role."
A point of disagreement here with Chris. Leadership is both a position
and a role. Any organization chart shows the 'leadership positions'.
Whether a person in a leadership position is able to exercise a
leadership role properly is a separate issue. All organizations should have high
expectations that individuals put into leadership positions are capable
of exercising an effective leadership role.
"For the purposes of this conversation, we will define two types of
power - positional power and personal power."
Charles Handy in his book "Understanding Organizations" identifies 6
sources of power within an organization:
- physical power (e.g. intimidation on a picket line)
- resource power, i.e. control of resources valued by others in the Organization
- position power ('official or legitimate power'), control of invisible assets that are
assigned to a specific role/position within an organization, these typically include
information, right of access networks and committees, right to organize work and work groups
- expert power, power vested in an individual based on the acknowledged expertise of that individual
- personal power, often called charisma or popularity within an organization
- negative power, the capacity to delay or stop things from happening
Some of the coaching I do with senior executives is around understanding power sources and
their use. In most organizational cultures recognizing power and using it appropriately is
directly related to successfully influencing policy and decisions.
How an individual uses the power they have in an organization is also
important since it says a lot about how an individual attempts to
influence an organization. Handy identifies six methods of influence:
- force
- rules and procedures
- exchange (bargaining, negotiating)
- persuasion
- ecology (use of existing cultural norms and group dynamics)
- magnetism
Researchers Dunphy Stace identified four types of leadership styles:
- collaborative
- consultative
- directive
- coercive
Dunphy Stace found that none of these four styles was necessarily any
better than the other, since the required style of leadership is related
to the situation that an organization is in, the level of threat it
faces, and the degree and pace of internal change that is required to deal
with the threats it faces.
Ultimately the primary role of a 'leader' is to assure the
sustainability of an organization. We can see this by using Lee Iacocca as a great
example. Lee is often seen as an example of tremendous leadership when
he brought Chrysler from the brink of bankruptcy. When we examine his
leadership style during this period we see it was based on primarily on
force and persuasion and was directive/coercive in style.
While it is potentially nice to think that effective leadership is
always collaborative and consultative in style the reality of business is
much different. As the saying goes, "extraordinary times often call for
extraordinary measures'.
I believe that as coaches we must be very careful about the leadership
assumptions we bring into our client engagements. Sometimes we
unconsciously coach clients towards our underlying beliefs about leadership and
leadership style and do them a grave disservice in the process,
especially in cases where we ignore the threats to an organization and the
degree/pace of change that is required to deal with these threats.
Post a Comment