How to Leverage Three Styles of Action to be a Better Leader-Manager
Getting things done and motivating others to do the same is the most essential skill-set of all leader-managers. In general, there are three styles of leadership action that can be used to motivate others to take action and move projects forward.
The first is the Assertive Style—also known as ‘command & control.’ Over the past decade, this style has fallen out of favour for obvious reasons, particularly its over-use. Nevertheless, this style has its advantages and usefulness, especially in times of crisis or when deadlines are tight. Consider this scenario; your house is burning down, and you are stuck inside. Would you want the firefighter to try to convince you to leave, or would you want them to pick you up and drag you outside? However, this style should be used with discretion. As with the house fire example, if there were an actual fire (ie. a very real business crisis), this style could make you a hero. Yet, if it were a false alarm (ie. a made-up or exaggerated emergency), this approach would have been overly aggressive, leaving your relationships strained.
The second approach is the Collaborative Style. This style involves gathering group input and attempting to get buy-in and team consensus. For the most part, teams love this leadership style because everyone feels heard and involved. However, there are a few downsides. Getting things done collaboratively usually moves at a snail’s pace, and people on the team may not always have the proper context to provide helpful input. This style is ideal for situations requiring long-term buy-in and rallying around. Using it to order pizza, pick out paint colours, or schedule a meeting is not the best use of time.
The last style of action is the Principled Style. This approach is more rule-based and involves leading by example. Ray Dailo made this style popular in his book, Principles. Using this method, a leader provides clear expectations for the team and establishes rules and frameworks to help guide the team’s decisions. This style has the benefit of the Assertive Style, clearly articulating the leader’s expectations. It also combines some elements of the Collaborative Style, providing room for movement. The Principled Style is great for setting the tone of the organization and building culture. However, this style offers a disadvantage during situations that fall outside-the-box, or when practicing in a grey area.
All Three Action Styles Should Be Represented
In complex scenarios, all three action styles should be represented. I liken this to the situation room, in which there is a meeting of the Military General (Assertive Style), the Secretary of State (Collaborative Style), and the Attorney General (Principled Style). The circumstances benefit from the Military instinct (ie. “Let’s blow things up and take action!”), the Secretary of State’s philosophy (ie. “We can work this out…”), and the Attorney General’s perspective (ie. “What does the law say?”). In business, all three of these approaches are warranted and needed, yet we don’t often see the value of the contrasting viewpoint to our own.
Just like the situation room, when a business crisis emerges, I want a room of leaders representing all three styles of leadership action. Together, we will complement each other’s weaknesses and move toward the best course of action.
Key Takeaways
- Reflect on your leadership. What is your dominant style of leadership action?
- In which areas might you need a little more Military General, Secretary of State, or Attorney General?
- Reflect on your team. Which style of leadership action do they respond to best?
- Experiment with the three different styles this week, and actively identify who will be in your situation room when the next emergency arises
