Speaking of Leadership®, Vol. 2, No. 15
Phil Holberton

This week's newsletter has two sections:

• Declaration of Independence or Deceleration of Independence — Which is it?
• Leadership Styles — Choosing the Right One

Declaration of Independence or Deceleration of Independence — Which is it?

Two weeks ago, in honor of July 4th, I wrote about the Declaration of Independence. In the rush of holiday preparations and with the inescapable fact that I am human, quality assurance took a back seat—a glaring typo was published. After discovering this mistake, I spent a fair amount of time determining how and why it happened. After all, it wasn't some extra “and” or “the”—somehow Declaration had become Deceleration.

I asked myself, was this a Freudian slip? Did I really mean to say Deceleration of Independence? Although I was still stinging from my blunder, I began to look at the world in a larger context, observing what is going on in our society. 

The typo acknowledged, I believe that maybe we are having a deceleration of our independence. We now have to look over our shoulders and be worried about terrorist attacks. That, in and of itself, doesn't make me feel very independent. Then I think of what is going on in the world of corporate governance and that doesn't make me feel very independent either. The President is proposing legislation that will increasingly intertwine government with our corporate entities. It seems we are moving from independence to interdependence. Much of our business development strategy is centered on developing alliances with other partners. Whether it is with customers or competitors/vendors to offer complementary products or services, we are finding ourselves more involved and beholden to other organizations. Interdependence seems a more appropriate description. 

A little red-faced, I am walking my talk and admitting my mistake. My quality assurance is back on track, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on Deceleration vs. Declaration. Was it more than a silly mistake?

Now ask yourself... Am I a Leader?

Leadership Styles — Choosing the Right One

Each of us approaches our leadership responsibility from a different perspective. We also have natural tendencies and styles that we have found to be successful (or unsuccessful) over the years. Still, it's important to understand how our leadership styles are defined and perceived and how to incorporate other leadership styles when appropriate. Although the topic of leadership styles could easily fill several heavy books, I'll briefly discuss three styles and their appropriate place.

Coaching is arguably one of the most non-confrontational leadership styles. An employee recognizes areas that need improvement and seeks out a coach or a mentor to achieve that improvement. The coach provides more guidance than authority. Objectives are mutually defined by coach and employee and the coach ensures that those objectives are met—and offers help in achieving them. Because the coaching leadership style is based in learning, it is only appropriate to implement in non-critical business situations where companies can afford to foster the growth of employees and have a view to the longer term.

In other situations, we may feel that our managerial style needs to be authoritative. For example, when an organization is going through substantial change and the vision from the top needs to have a clear direction, the authoritative style is most appropriate. The authoritative style limits employee input while expressly issuing clear instructions on how objectives should be met. Employees who are newer in their careers may need well-articulated direction and, under these circumstances, the authoritative approach will be the most effective. However, be careful if you are a new manager and your workforce is highly experienced—an authoritative style may be detrimental. It is hard to give followers direction when they believe they are more knowledgeable than you.

A coercive style of leadership is appropriate in times of crisis, when leaders need immediate compliance from employees. In this situation the leader/manager will give nonnegotiable directives as opposed to suggested direction. Non-compliance with this style normally ends in employee termination. But, be forewarned: Coercive style cannot be used as a long-term strategy. Motivated individuals will offer passive resistance because they want to grow and personal growth is not part of the coercive atmosphere.

Your leadership style should be dictated by your personality and the situation of the business. Remember that different situations require different leadership styles. As your business transforms, be sure to be flexible in your approach to leadership.

Now ask yourself... Am I a Leader?