How Leaders Adapt to Followers

Having visited many different companies here in the San Francisco Bay Area this week, it seems that in any Californian corporate culture, there is one key component: collective leadership. Everyone in the company is leading and it appears that notwithstanding any varied characteristics of the different corporate cultures, collective leadership is always an absolute essential – the sine qua non of business on the US West coast. This phenomenon might go some way to explaining why this area is often at the forefront of business developments (e.g. Silicon Valley, clean energy, biotech etc.)  Constant adaptation, acceptance of uncertainty, a try-and-see mentality, risk taking and staff alignment and development are all characteristics of this pervasive and collective leadership.

How can this collective leadership work? If it is prevalent amongst so many different companies with so many different cultures, collective leadership cannot be a homogenous process – it has to adapt to the context and circumstance and indeed the leaders have to adapt to the followers. In particular, I was reminded of Hersey and Blanchard’s model of Situational Leadership theory (Hersey et al, “Management of Organisational Behaviour”, 2007, 9^th edition, Prentice Hall). This theory states that effective leadership is best achieved when the leaders adapt their style to the followers. For collective leadership to be so evident, some situational adaption must be taking place...

Here is a summary of Situational Leadership along with further implications (“et alors”).

How Leaders Adapt to Followers

According to Hersey and Blanchard, different situations demand different leadership styles which are in turn, appropriate for a certain type of follower. The four styles are as follows:

Directing

High task focus, low relationship focus – the leaders define the roles and tasks for the follower, and supervise them closely. Decisions are made by the leader and announced, so communication is largely one-way. This is appropriate for low competence, high commitment followers (making up in enthusiasm what they lack in skills).

Coaching

High task focus, high relationship focus – the leaders still define roles and tasks, but seek ideas and suggestions from the follower. Decisions remain the leader’s prerogative, but communication is much more two-way. This is appropriate for followers who have some competence but lack commitment (needing supervision because they are still relatively inexperienced; but also needing support and praise to build involvement).

Supporting

Low task focus, high relationship focus – the leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower. The leader facilitates and takes part in decisions, but control is with the follower. This is appropriate for followers who have high competence but variable commitment (not needing much direction because of their skills; but needing support to increase either their confidence or motivation).

Delegating

Low task focus, low relationship focus – the leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower. The follower decides when and how the leader will be involved.   This is appropriate for followers who have high competence and high commitment (both able and willing to work on a project by themselves).

Et alors?

The key message is that effective leaders are versatile and can apply any leadership style at any given moment; however research suggests that only 3% of all managers are capable of applying any style in any given situation! This percentage might be somewhat better in California and indeed there might be a strong link with adaptability of leadership style and culture (either national or corporate). The link might be that with situational leadership, there are two leadership styles which are low relationship focus: for cultures which are high on individualism and masculinity and are essentially task rather than relationship driven, one might expect that there is therefore a tendency for “direction” and possibly “delegation” leadership styles rather than “support” or “coaching”. When there is also a strong power-distance in the culture, leadership might be further restricted to “direction” rather than “delegation”. In other words, the culture will restrict the ability of the leader to adapt to the follower.

In California, an analysis of the cultural dimensions might appear to initially support the lack of “relationship focus” as there is high individualism and high masculinity. Whilst the power-distance is low in the US, this would only open the door to “delegation” in addition to “direction” leadership style. What might explain the paradox of the high prevalence of “coaching” and “support” as leadership styles is the management focus on empathy and “Emotional Intelligence” (c.f. Goleman). There appears to be a general acceptance that to better achieve your objectives as a team, it is essential to understand the “emotions” of your staff, or otherwise put: the feelings of the team. So despite the individualism and masculinity, there is a drive to invest in the relationships. Accordingly the “support” and “coaching” leadership styles become possible which means that if not individually then at least collectively, the leadership is able to adapt according to the situation. This is perhaps how leaders could adapt to all followers despite the prevailing culture...