Leadership Models

Recently, I was thinking about the essense of what it takes to be a good leader. You see, as I get older (and hopefully wiser), I find that I am being thrust more and more into a leadership role mainly because of my age and experience. To be honest, I am starting to relish this role and the prestige that comes with it, so to say I am "thrust" into this role may not be accurate assessment, as it implies that it is role that I do not want. I do want it, even though it is not something that I necessarily seek out.

Anyway, if I am going to do anything, I want to do it right. Therefore, I have been thinking about what it takes to be a good leader. At its essense, a leader is somebody who directs the actions of others. Therefore, a good leader is good at directing the actions of others - getting them to do what you want. From my observations, there are three different general models of leadership: authoritative, trust, and collaborative.

"Authoritative leadership" is where one uses one's position in the management hierarchy to lead. People follow you by virtue of your position within the organization. In this model, there is usually some force of law, written or unwritten, that helps to enforce the authority of the leader. The military, for instance, makes it a crime to not follow the lawful order of someone of a higher rank. This ensures that the leader is able to exercise his or her authority. In the workplace, authority is not necessarily a matter of law, but it is enforced by the company's culture. For instance, not following order may be punished through bad performance reviews ("he is not a 'team player'"), smaller raises and bonuses, or outright termination.

At its heart, this model of leadership has the potential to marginalize the opinions of the subordinates. People may be ordered to do something that they feel is not the correct course of action, so they may choose to give the minimum amount of effort to satisfy the order. This "passive, aggressive" stance may lead to mere compliance rather than a whole-hearted effort. Therefore, it would appear to be a sub-optimal leadership model. It seems like inexperienced leaders rely solely on this model, but an experienced leader will seek out other models in order to get more than just compliance.

A second model of leadership is what I call "trust leadership". It is the next step up from "authoritative leadership". The leader's authority is backed up by a trust in the leader, based upon the leader's experience and past track record. The subordinates may not totally understand or agree with the leader's order, but they are willing to follow because they "trust" that the leader knows what he or she is doing. Even though the subordinates may not have a complete picture behind the leader's reasoning, they have confidence that the leader's orders will make sense eventually. This has the potential to bring about more compliance through blind faith, but it still may be sub-optimal since the subordinates do not have ownership over the actions. In a sense, the subordinates are still just pawns in a game that they do not fully comprehend.

The third model of leadership is what I call "collaborative leadership". Under this model, the leader convinces the subordinates that his or her orders are the correct course of action. Rather than just being directive to be followed blindly, they are actions that make logical sense. On the surface, they sounds like "leadership by consensus" which is another phrase for "chaos". However, the leader becomes the driver of that consensus through either force of personality or logic. The advantage of this is that the orders don't seem like orders, because the subordinates have been convinced, in their heart, that they are doing the right thing. In a sense, they are taking "ownership" of the orders, so they don't feel like orders. When people have this level of commitment, they are naturally more productive.

One other side benefit of "collaborative leadership" is that it opens the possibility for the leader to solicit the team for their views. It is rare that the leader knows everything, so a good leader listens to his experts before blindly barking orders. Also, the subordinates may have a similar opinion to the leader as far as the course of action to take, so the order feels more like it came from the "bottom-up", increasing the "buy-in".

My conclusion is that to lead, one must not rely on authority alone. A good leader needs to be able to elicit compliance by cultivating a enviornment of trust and a sense of ownership.

As an aside, people often point to Donald Trump's The Apprentice as some sort of pop-culture MBA course. While there may be some merit to this opinion, it seems like 24 could be a better TV show to study if you want to get management insights. Every show is packed with decision making under pressure, risk assessment, contingency planning, and other MBA-style lessons. Maybe Jack Bauer is a better mentor to emulate than The Donald? Then again, Trump lives in opulence, surrounded by beautiful women. On the other hand, Jack spent the last two years in a Chinese prison...