There are a variety of Leadership Styles and ’It’s not my style’ is a commonly used phrase that can be heard in many walks of life.  However, if you are a ‘Leader’, your style will impact on the workplace environment and the people working both with you and for you. The impact can be both positive and negative, which naturally affects team and individual performance.

The key is to understand, control and ultimately develop your skill to use different Leadership Styles.
I have asked many business leaders at all levels how they perceive their ‘Leadership Style’. Common responses range from “firm but fair” to “do as I do” or “Coach”.

None of these are wrong, but the challenge is that many leaders use only one or two styles – not enough if the Leader wants optimum performance from the team.

Take a team of 10 people.  How many of them are going to have a positive response to the same leadership approach?  Probably 2 or 3 – leaving he rest of the team at best neutral, why? The Leader uses a style that doesn’t bring out the best in them. A situation that is often demonstrated, when someone who is an average performer in one team becomes an outstanding performer in another!
There are many aspects to becoming an outstanding Leader, but 2 key steps stand out as crucial:

• First - A Leader must understand ‘Leadership Styles’ and have the ability to use different styles according the situation presented.

• Second - A Leader must be able to use different styles to get the best performance form each team member.

There are 7 Leadership Styles which should be recognised and understood by any aspiring Leader:
1. Directive 
2. Visionary
3. Coach
4. People
5. Mutual 
6. Role Model
7. Mentor

Each of us will find that 1 or 2 of these styles come naturally. However the challenge is to develop the styles that are not natural – but needed to deal with different situations.

In a recent case, I was working with an experienced second line manager -  a well respected performer whose strength was developing new first line managers. I will call her Jane.
Initially, we agreed that Jane’s style was predominantly Directive and Visionary. When challenged, Jane became somewhat defensive when I suggested that she could improve her leadership skills and create better team performance if she consciously developed other leadership styles. It was a natural reaction as her team was performing so why should she change.

However Jane was not asking herself the question

“What else was possible”?

So, we divided her team into 3 groups:

1. Enthusiastic Beginners – people new to their role with steep learning curves.  They loved Jane and revelled in the clear direction, coaching and vision of their goals. Not surprising then that Jane had a great reputation with people new to first line management roles – her leadership style was a perfect match for their needs.

2. High Performers – people who were established and leading performing teams. This group reacted well to Jane’s visionary approach as they liked goals and communicated this to their own teams. Conversely, Jane’s ‘directive’ style caused frustration and dissatisfaction which posed the serious threat of losing good people. High Performers didn’t like being told what to do. They were happy to listen, but they want to be consulted and to contribute to her vision. Jane wasn’t offering leadership based on the People, Mutual and Mentor level.
3. Skilled but Cautious – this was a well established group best described as ‘Complacent’. Jane found this group difficult to lead.  Their performance was average and Jane knew it could be greatly improved. If the overall team performance was to increase, growth had to come from this group.

Over time, this group had alienated themselves from Jane – they viewed her vision as unreachable and the group avoided ‘Direction’ rather than acting on it. They understood ‘what’ Jane wanted from them, but didn’t know ‘how’ to get there.

This group were crying out for Coach, People as well as Visionary styles of leadership, but only perceived Directive and Visionary.  So, there was a mismatch of needs creating a negative work environment. Group performance from this set was poor and so were their teams.
 
The message to Jane was simple; she had to follow 3 courses of action:

• First – keep doing what works – it was very important that Jane continued to build on her natural leadership style - successful with the ‘Enthusiastic Beginners’.

• Second – consult with the High Performers – Jane adopted the People and Mutual Leadership styles and encouraged them to contribute ideas to achieve her vision.

Using the Mentor style, Jane had ‘one to one’ sessions which helped the group decide their true goals and explore ways to reach them.
Follow-up revealed an overall improvement in the work environment and staff satisfaction scores. It is vital that companies don’t lose their high performers.

• Third – develop the Skilled but Cautious - a key change for Jane. Although the Visionary style was still appropriate, she needed to take on Coach and People styles too. An approach through which she could give the group the right tools to develop their team performance.

Again follow up demonstrated that workplace environment, staff motivation and performance had all improved.
I’m sure that Jane would agree that in implementing these different leadership styles, not only were her teams now on track, but that her own performance was enhanced by her new found ability to adapt to different challenges.

So the message is the next time you feel that a certain Leadership behaviour is “not my style” perhaps “it should be”!

Brett Lyons