Are leaders born or made?Let us consider a situation.
The CEO of a company is about to retire, tension is now growing as to who will be the next leader of this company? Will it be the reliable assistant who all ways gets his work done on time, is charismatic and everyone loves him? Or will it be the CEO’s son or relative, who doesn’t really have the best communication or leadership skills, may not have as much experience as the assistant and not everyone likes this relative too much for various reasons.
This may depend on the type of ownership, or decision-making process the company takes. But would it be a good thing or a bad thing if either gets the job? What are the pros and cons and what are the considerations a successful company should take into consideration?
Some people might like to argue, give the job to the assistant since he has more experience and everyone already likes him. But what happens if this is a family owned business? Or can the assistant handle this type of position, whereas, if the relative gets the job, people will perceive it to be protectionism. On the other hand, if the relative gets the position and empowers the assistant to continue in the position he has, who guarantees that the relative will do a good job like his predecessor?
Now with all that in mind let's reconsider the opening question - are leaders born or made?
If the son was born into a leadership position - does that make him the right candidate for the job?
Just because the reliable assistant performs well on his current tasks, does that mean he will perform well as a leader in such a high position?
On the other hand, Let's consider if the relative is put in such a position would he have the chance or would he learn and adapt into becoming an effective leader?
The point:
There is no definite answer to any of the above questions. There is however considerations that must be taken into account.
A leader can be made, some are born - the only real question is - what kind of leader is he? And is he maintaining a successful and meaningful leadership?
There are four main types of leadership styles. The directional leader, the charismatic leader, the situational leader, and the leader that just hands over the job and lets his subordinates do the job with minimal involvement of his own.
Directional leader, is the leader that dictates the tasks, imposes deadlines and threatens that they better be met or else negative consequences will be faced. This type of leadership does not consider the parties involved, the situation, nor the possible inputs the subordinates involved may have. This type focuses mainly on the task at hand and may focus on the leader himself, providing him with seniority, power and control.
The charismatic leader, is sort of the opposite to the directional leader, where he reasons with his subordinates, encourages them, and tries all sorts of motivational and encouragement methods to get the parties involved and meet a desired deadline. This style focuses mainly on the subordinates believing that as long as they are happy and feel good they will in turn work properly. The leader is perceived to be a nice positive individual that would do anything to motivate his employees, to avoid conflict and to make the environment as friendly as possible.
The loose leadership style, is one where the leader hands over a task to his subordinates, devises the tasks amongst the group members, gives them a deadline and lets the birds loose. Closer to the deadline the loose leader reminds everyone that there is one or two weeks left and that they should start handing in their parts. This type of leadership focuses only on the task and its deadline. The leader shows very minimal involvement, offers minimal support and assistance. The subordinates are simply expected to perform on their own initiative and motivation. They are simply expected to have their parts of their tasks ready on time for the deadline.
Finally the situational leader, who hands over a task, identifies the strength and interests of each individual in the group, and according to the results of his findings, he hands over specific tasks to individuals that would best fit the job. Along the project, the leader every so often would touch base with every individual and would inquire about his personal life as well as the progress of his part of the task, reminding the group that his door is always open to their needs, questions, concerns and any other need that requires support. This leadership style focuses on many different aspects; the group as a whole, the task, the individuals in the group, the situations surrounding the subordinates including their personal and work lives - offering them support, assistance (when possible) and reassurance.
Which style do you think is the most effective? Please leave your comments and your thesis on this subject. Based on the discussion below a part 2 will be posted shortly containing the benefits and negatives of each leadership, the best ways to go about choosing the right type of leadership and answers or comments to any of your questions or pointers.
Feel free to tweet or digg this article or share it with your friends.
BS"D
ReplyDeleteDepends on the culture. Here in Ukraine, I have tried a mixture of loose and situational leadership (I do not get involved in my employees' personal life after a mistake I made in Russia) with mixed results, whereas directional leadership, in which they just understand that the work has to be done, tends to work better. Not my style at all, and I almost feel I am acting when I manage that way, but apparently the spirit of Soviet totalitarianism still reigns here.