From Ineffective Management to Effective Leadership

There are an enormous amount of “how to” books on the market with multi-step guides for self-development as a leader. Similarly, there are numerous formulae and models for moving “beyond” management to become a leader. So for anyone with fresh leadership ambitions the obvious starting point is to ask which theory is the best! Unfortunately, “best” is very difficult to define and there is no short answer to that question. Most “how to” leadership models focus on business change and transformation as a process; however what most good managers with strong leadership potential are looking for is a guide as to how they themselves can improve to become more effective. 

Along those lines, there is an article in this month’s Harvard Business Review which asked the question “What does it take for an ineffective manager to become a highly effective leader?” P. Fuda and R. Badham in “Fire, Snowball, Mask, Movie: How Leaders Spark and Sustain Change”, 2011, www.hbr.org (reprint R1111L) suggest that the key is to “identify the common threads in the experience of others who have achieved success”. Having extended their research to 10,000 managers they define success as “radical improvement in 360-degree feedback on their personal effectiveness, along with significant gains for their units or organisations in terms of performance, customer approval, and employee engagement.”

Here is a summary of what they propose followed by my culturally biased critique (“et alors”).

From Ineffective Management to Effective Leadership

The authors state that to become more effective as a leader, there are four key themes to consider.

Ambition (“Fire”)

Whilst people can be driven by fear, “aspiration is a far more important motivator”. The “fire” is ambition and the question should be “what do you want to gain personally” and what “legacy do you want to create for your organisation”?

Accountability (“Snowball”)

Managers may find that they are taking all the decisions. At once and at the same time, the manager needs to delegate more accountability and be accountable to the team. A key question to ask is “how open and accountable are you prepared to be”?

Authenticity (“Mask”)

At work, what imperfections are you concealing and what personae are you adopting to be “successful”? Once the manager has realised that further success requires change then the next question is “how could you bring more of your authentic self to work”?

Self-Reflection (“Movie”)

Many managers can point at others and say “that” is bad management, but how many have taken a step back to review their own methods? The key question to ask is: are you constantly “reviewing and editing” your own methods?

Et alors?

The focus of the above themes are personal, but can these reflections work in all cultures? Having reviewed the above in the context of Rossinski’s “Cultural Orientations Framework” (from “Coaching Across Cultures”, 2003, Nicholas Brealey Publishing) I propose the following:

Regarding ambition, some cultures are individual whereas others are collective. For those with an individualist preference, it is easy to emphasise personal ambitions and then relate or rationalise those ambitions to the goals and objectives of the organisation. In more collective cultures it is unlikely that any one “individual” is going to become a more effective leader by sharing their personal ambitions… Some cultures readily welcome “change” and normally in leadership theory “ambition” is synonymous with achieving change; but this would have to be treated carefully in a culture which values stability.

Accountability touches on two aspects of culture: one relating to the individual and the other to the organisation. Some cultures preference a strong internal locus of control – the individual has the power and is accordingly responsible. Other cultures are more focused on harmony or humility which might not lend themselves to the concept of accountability. On an organisational level, some cultures are role based and others task based. The former usually have strong hierarchies which makes delegation and empowerment a challenge, again putting accountability into question.

Authenticity is currently very popular in management theory. In terms of definitions of identity and purpose, some cultures favour “being” rather than “doing”. “Being” is living in the moment, focusing on relationships and growing; “doing” is more focused on accomplishments and achievements. The former is potentially an easier culture in which to be authentic. Similarly, some cultures are very formal where members of a group are expected to adhere to a strict protocol which, unlike in informal cultures, would leave little room for “authentic” behaviour.

Self-reflection is always a good starting point for self-improvement but how are you going to share those self-reflections in order to improve as a leader? Many organisations are by their very nature competitive rather than collaborative. In the former, self-reflections might best be kept to yourself. Likewise some cultures are protective whereas others are sharing. In a sharing culture closer relationships can be achieved by opening up; in protective cultures mental boundaries are established – personal feelings are not shared so whilst self-reflection might not be a problem, to grow as a leader and share those self-reflections might be a tough challenge!