Through our interactions with team members, we define Leadership Styles as getting things done. Your Leadership Styles are defined by how you interact with your team members, both individually and collectively. The Leadership Styles you demonstrate have a significant impact on the team’s output.
The behavior of a leader toward group members is referred to as leadership style. The leader’s behavior pattern is known as style, and it represents his job as a leader. A leader’s Leadership Styles are determined by his or her ideology, personality, experience, and value system.
Here are 4 different Leadership Styles;
1. Directive Leadership Styles
One of four Leadership Styles, the directive style establishes clear objectives and guidelines for team members. Some criticize directing leadership because it appears to contradict today’s emphasis on teamwork and cooperation; for example, a directive leader would say, “do this because I say so,” rather than “let’s speak about it.”
The directive style, on the other hand, has its time and place. Setting goals and precise results, for example, are critical to the effective completion of work that has been outsourced or delegated to another organization or team. The directive approach also relieves the boss of some of his weighty tasks. The leader can take a step back once the goals and objectives have been established, along with clear instructions on what has to be done. There’s no need for ongoing surveillance or assistance. The directive style is an effective management technique for establishing accountability in this way.
There are certain companies that flourish in a goal-oriented environment. It establishes a clear chain of command for people and teams that require clear limits and expectations without standing in the way of getting the task done. It must, however, be complemented with solid communication skills so that employees understand their role in the wider picture. If this technique is employed excessively when leading a team, it might deprive the members of any meaningful role other than task completion. Employees begin to feel like a swarm of worker bees, which isn’t conducive to engagement and retention.
2. Supportive Leadership Styles
Working together, sharing ideas, recommendations, and solutions within a group, the supportive Leadership Styles(same category as collaborative) is about sharing ideas, proposals, and solutions within a group, but with the leader assuming responsibility for the ultimate word Leadership Styles. The distinction between the directive and the declarative approach is immediately noticeable.
The ideal supporting leader does not set out to achieve all of his or her objectives on their own. Supportive leaders, on the other hand, see themselves as team members, which entails defining the rules and goals but also acknowledging the team’s abilities and embracing suggestions for improvement.
The supportive leadership style is effective when the leader does not need to be completely involved until a decision is required. This procedure is exemplified by the hiring of a new employee. Although a manager or director may have complete discretion over the recruitment process, the ultimate choice must be approved by the CEO.
Employee interaction, according to the helpful leader, is the only way to get constructive feedback. This kind of leader is noted for keeping lines of communication open. Employees can readily reach them, and they check in on a regular basis to give corrections (i.e. “management by walking about”).
They are open to recommendations and even criticism because they do not allow their egos to stand in the way of doing what is best for the group. Supportive leaders’ employees are often more interested in their jobs because they feel immediately heard and involved in decision-making. They are given the opportunity to show themselves as they go through tasks and projects, and they are given opportunities to lead the team.
Although the supporting method appears to be beneficial, there are significant drawbacks, particularly when difficult decisions must be made. It’s one of those Leadership Styles that requires time, which isn’t always an option, especially in environments where choices must be made swiftly (think of a hospital!). Let’s face it, there are instances when the “buck stops” at the very top.
A helpful leader may struggle in this area, but a directive leader can take command. Furthermore, team members must be able to manage disagreement as a group in an environment where ideas are exchanged. For goal-oriented leaders who don’t have the patience to cope with “group believe,” this can be difficult.
3. Delegative Leadership Styles
The affiliative leadership style, often called delegative leadership, is self-explanatory. Delegating leaders are hands-off, which indicates they have high regard for the knowledge and experience of others around them. When a leader uses the delegating method, he or she provides the person or team complete authority to make the ultimate choice.
When managing a team of senior executives, managers, or directors, the delegating Leadership Styles is most effective since the CEO completely trusts their expertise and emotional maturity. You can understand why, unless the choice is low-risk, this technique is rarely adopted in teams made up of junior or mid-level employees.
Leaders that can use the delegative approach can create environments that are extremely satisfying for their employees. Employees select their own timetables and methods for getting things done. Delegating leadership is proven to be quite beneficial in certain situations in these days of “work from home.
” Many previously hesitant executives have been astonished by how successfully senior team members have managed to get their job done outside of a conventional office environment using videoconferencing technology and collaboration tools throughout the epidemic.
However, if all leadership is done in a delegative approach, there are some severe difficulties. Leaders might be perceived as aloof, indifferent, or, in the worst-case scenario, unfit for their position. There’s also the matter of accountability to consider. Who is to blame if mistakes are made? The team may point the finger at the leader, who then blames the group.
Neither case promotes cooperation or involvement. When teams operate alone with little or no engagement from leadership, an unusual effect emerges. When a change in direction is necessary, such team members might be adamantly opposed to it. After all, they’ve done just fine without any interference; why would they want to do things differently simply because their boss isn’t there?
4. Coaching Leadership Styles
According to a Harvard Business Review study, the coaching leadership style is utilized the least common of all the other Leadership Styles. Many leaders complain that on a normal high-pressure day, they don’t have time for the tedious and patient task of one-on-one training and development. “It’s too bad they don’t give it a try,” the study’s authors conclude, “since it takes little or no time after the first session.” Leaders who neglect this approach are missing out on a tremendous tool: it has a significant beneficial influence on climate and performance.”
The coaching leadership style focuses on the employees’ performance competency. Those with coaching leadership abilities (i.e., particular training in leadership coaching) may assist workers in identifying their distinctive strengths and shortcomings, as well as tying them to their personal and professional goals.
Employees rise to the challenge of being the best they can be through individualized development programs and feedback. As a result, leaders are relieved of having to make all of the choices or complete all of the work on their own. They know they have a capable, engaged crew that understands what is expected of them and is always up for a challenge.
Employees who desire to grow or learn new skills to help them advance in their professions benefit from the coaching leadership style. And, even better, it works for individuals who are averse to learning, improving, or are afraid of feedback. This is a big problem since most individuals don’t like being told what to fix, especially if they’re used to blame-based workplace culture. Being a successful leader-as-coach necessitates expertise.
To do this effectively, you’ll need to acquire certain coaching abilities. Management coaching training and practice are required for providing corrective feedback and navigating “tough talks.” It also implies that a leader must be “on the ground” in the workplace, knowing the roles of all those who are being taught. In other words, if you never leave the corner office, you can’t coach.
It’s worth noting that the coaching leader is particularly concerned with developing and enhancing employee qualities and abilities. Coaching alone is unlikely to be adequate to turn around a company if you’ve been designated as a leader to do it. Those of us who work in leadership coaching know that combining the two styles—coaching and directive—along with some delegation and assistance, may be quite effective in attaining a great outcome.
