Almost everyone finds themselves in a position where they have to lead a group at one point or the other. It can happen early in life and in a formal setting, say in the role of a class monitor at school, or happen informally, say in leading the pack of all younger cousins at family functions. Or it can happen later in life and in formal settings, like being the president of the managing committee of the society you live in. It can be based on merit, like in study groups where most scholarly lead the group, or based on experience like in social groups where the elder ones or the ones having the most exposure get to lead. In any group, the style of leadership is as much about the personality of the leader, as it is about the dynamics of the group.
When it comes to corporate world though, the styles of leadership can be covered in few finite ways and they tend to be present across functions. A team in a corporate setting is much like a sports team. In both the settings there is a clear goal of winning and excelling at something, where set rules are to be followed which help measure performance, and the role of every member of the team is clearly defined. With this analogy, there are 3 styles of leadership that emerge – the team manager, the coach, and the captain.
The Manager
The team manager is number oriented and each member of the team gets reduced to a quantifiable number on a sheet. There is a number that represents the cost at which a team member comes, and also a number that indicates the performance of the team member. Each expected deliverable is also quantified, measured in output per day, and the desired goal is also quantified and measured in target dates and milestones against each date along the way. The details around why and how tasks need to accomplished are generally skimmed over, more often than not the end defines the means, and discussions with the team are centered on finding primary contacts for tasks and responsibilities.
This style of leadership tends to be effective in the short term, say for a project. It helps keep a very strong control on the project proceedings and helps take difficult decisions dispassionately. But it is extremely impersonal as the leader builds no emotional connect with the team members. The sense of constant evaluation leaves the team stressed and each member feels that they are on their own. The leader tends to put blames on the primary contacts and the team tends to shun away from being that primary contact. There is no sense of association and belonging to the team among the members, and worse, a sense of competition among the members also arises thereby shaking the very foundations of being a team. In long term such teams tend to have constant churn and it’s very hard for each member to feel any sense of accomplishment in what they do.
The Coach
Unlike the manager, a team coach leads with more inter-personal interactions with the members. The numbers driven approach is still there and each member is still replaceable, but there is also a balance of mentorship. So the coach looks at both the numbers and the individual. There is genuine effort to bring the best in each member and mold them in the roles where they serve the team the best. Both milestones and detailed paths towards those milestones are given equal importance, and there is open dialogue between the leader and the members to discuss challenges and their solutions.
This style works well in both short term and long term as the team feels a bond with the leader. There is an emotional connect between the leader and each member and that builds an association with the team. Problems are discussed and that takes the stress away to a large extent. The team feels that they are not on their own which makes a positive impact. It’s still easier to take difficult role altering decisions since there lies a sense of competition among team members, but the coach mentors the right candidate for the right role. Team members might hesitate to own tough responsibilities but more often than not, each member settles in their role and things tend to work good for majority of times.
The Captain
Unlike a team manager or a team coach, a team captain assumes leadership in an organic manner. The captain is a team member first, completely and entirely, and then goes the extra mile to mentor and lead the team. Leading by example is the typical way a captain leads. Each member feels that the leader is an extension of themselves. Their performance numbers still dictate the roles and the responsibilities assigned to them, but there is a continuous effort to outperform themselves and rise to bigger roles. This is because the leader toils besides them to push them for excellence. The milestones are still the most important part of discussions, but they become mere facts and most of the brainstorming is about the best path leading towards them which enables each member to learn something more.
This style of leadership is built on deep emotional bonds between the team leader and team members, and organically such bonds form between all the members as well. This makes this style very effective in short term and long term, both. There is no stress or fear among team members and collaboration across all pushes the overall team output upwards where the total becomes more than the sum of parts. Role altering difficult decisions do not come easy for such leaders as they own each responsibility themselves as well. But the strong bond across the team makes them deal with such situations in the most transparent manner and the team collectively owns the altered responsibilities. Such leaders bring out the best in their teams and transform each member into future leaders.
Ultimately a leader must realize what it all boils down to – does the team exist to serve the leader, or the leader exists to serve the team. With all my heart I feel it’s the latter and that is what makes all the difference between high performing highly motivated teams and the rest. As it’s true with every other concept in life, so it is with leadership styles that nothing is absolute. Effective leaders do not absolutely stick to one of these 3 styles but instead tend to overlap between them, and based on their personalities they tend to lean more on one style than the other. As long as the intent is to serve the team and enable others to find the leaders in themselves, it all works well.