The Only Constant Is Change
This quote is attributed to both Greek philosopher Heraclitus and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. Though I'm not sure Heraclitus actually wrote those words in that order, it is true that both writers, and many others, spent considerable time on the subject of change. It must be an important subject!
For leaders it is. In fact, change is not just a part of leadership, it is leadership. No matter where one is on the ladder of career progression the only thing which is sure is that there will be change. Lately, that change comes faster than ever before.
There are two very important aspects of change that leaders must always consider. The first is not only that change is inevitable, but that it must be inevitable. Some leaders avoid change as much as possible. Their philosophy is that everything has worked up to now, why change. This way of thinking is very closely related to the grossly misshapen "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. Leaders who follow this line of reasoning will fade into obscurity.
The second aspect of change leaders must remember is change causes stress. Interestingly, good change can cause as much stress as bad change. For example, marriage is often listed as one of the greatest stressors even though it is considered a happy, joyful event, at least when it happens.
An organization is very similar and even change which is embraced and supported by its members will cause turmoil within that organization.
It would seem there is some contradiction between these two aspects of change; it's inevitable and is a part of leading the organization, yet it will always lead to stress. That's why change must be approached carefully. While not changing is a recipe for failure, changing too much or too fast is also dangerous.
There are a couple of dichotomies to consider with change. One is that people are all for the change they believe will fix someone else's problems but not so enthusiastic about suggestions regarding their own shortcomings. Another, closely related, is that people will expect others to enthusiastically adopt the changes they suggest, but are much less fervent about embracing changes others put forth.
There's a generational component to the change equation as well. The older generations are a little less likely to publically reject change. That doesn't mean they'll support it with open arms though. If they strongly oppose the suggested change, they are more likely to work behind the scenes to impede implementation. The younger generation will be much more vocal and more likely to actively, and openly work to impede implementation.
To make the process easier, leaders should ask the following questions when considering or implementing a change.
1. Is this change necessary? Does it directly relate to the organization's mission?
2. How will this affect the rank and file worker?
3. What benefits will result from the change and who will they most effect?
4. How can I best express the benefit of and/or necessity for making this change?
5. What are the consequences of not making the change?
Change isn't easy; and it shouldn't be. But that doesn't mean change is bad. If a leader can answer the 5 questions above and make those answers clear to the workers, change will be a little less difficult and certainly more effective. It's important for leaders to learn to deal with change because it is the only constant.
Leading for Dollar$!
Excerpts from the introductory leadership course that will develop energized leaders, engaged employees, and more profits.
Leadership Styles
As Hersey and Blanchard explain, leadership style is highly dependent on the follower. A leader can adopt a single style and expect all subordinates to just accept that as "his way." But how would an experienced, highly motivated follower feel under a constantly authoritarian leader? How effective would a completely hands off leader be with followers who were inexperienced or not motivated?
To determine leadership style, we must first examine the followers. Hersey and Blanchard placed followers in four categories: unable and unwilling, unable but willing, able but unwilling, able and willing. Just as leadership is situational, so is followership. A worker who is new to a particular task may be enthusiastic about mastering the task (willing) but still unfamiliar with the requirements (unable). Likewise, a worker may be completely familiar with the task but, for whatever reason, just doesn't want to do it (unwilling). A good leader will adapt to these situations.
Consider your team and the tasks they perform. Is everyone at the same level of ability and willingness?
Hersey and Blanchard defined four leadership styles that are correlated to follower readiness: Telling, Selling, Participating, Delegating. Recall that Rensis Likert defined four management styles: Exploitative Authoritative, Benevolent Authoritative, Consultative System, and Participative.
For the purposes of this course we'll consider three leadership styles: authoritative, directive, democratic.
A leader in the authoritative style uses his or her authority to guide people in a particular direction. The follower has no voice and must do whatever they are told. This sort of style can be effective in emergency situations but in most cases it will be viewed by subordinates as too heavy handed. Leaders who consistently use this style are probably somewhat insecure themselves, either because they are uncomfortable with their own knowledge or because they do not want to trust their followers.
In the directive style, the leader tells followers what to do, and sometimes how to do it. This style is effective with workers who are new to a task or who have demonstrated an unwillingness to work on their own. Note that the directive style is not authoritarian. The directive leader is willing to take input from the followers. In fact a good leader will solicit input while understanding that the followers are not ready to be left alone without close supervision.
The participative style is appropriate when followers are knowledgeable and have demonstrated a willingness to accomplish the task. A participative leader will actively solicit follower input. Supervision is at a minimum and the leader involves everyone in problem solving.
Obviously the participative style is desired, if not always possible. A leader should always be striving to reach this level. Followers will respond better and a more efficient use of manpower is possible.
My boss primarily uses a ________________ style of leadership.
I use a __________________ style of leadership.
I change my style of management based on the situation and follower. (Yes or No)
As you become a more confident leader, you will notice the line between directive and participative leadership begin to blur. Most followers will respond best to a participative style and the need for directive leadership will diminish. Even when a follower is completely unfamiliar with a task, your directive style will seem more participatory because you have established good rapport with your followers.
Of course there is a good chance that you will have a follower or two who simply will not respond to a participatory style of leadership. For these followers, a modified directive style is often effective. They are usually technically competent to perform the task and so can generally be left alone. They will not participate in problem solving though. Sometimes they will be swayed by peer pressure, but not always.
Obviously, the situation may also dictate the style of leadership required as well. Leaders in emergency services such as fire and police will tend to use a more directive style. Some leaders also allow short deadlines to effect their leadership styles. While that may be necessary, your style should still primarily reflect the follower. A highly competent follower should not require a directive style of leadership just because time is short. In fact, a leader who has developed an effective participatory style should find that style works even when deadlines loom.
