Digital Leadership

https://www.nascenia.com/digital-transformation-the-new-business-era/

Leadership Theories

Theories are commonly categorized by which aspect is believed to define the leader the most. The most widespread one's are: Great Man Theory, Trait Theory, Behavioural Theories, Contingency Theories, Transactional Theories and Transformational Theories.

Great Man Theory (1840s)

The Great Man theory evolved around the mid 19th century. Even though no one was able to identify with any scientific certainty, which human characteristic or combination of, were responsible for identifying great leaders. Everyone recognized that just as the name suggests; only a man could have the characteristic (s) of a great leader.

The Great Man theory assumes that the traits of leadership are intrinsic. That simply means that great leaders are born...

they are not made. This theory sees great leaders as those who are destined by birth to become a leader. Furthermore, the belief was that great leaders will rise when confronted with the appropriate situation. The theory was popularized by Thomas Carlyle, a writer and teacher. Just like him, the Great Man theory was inspired by the study of influential heroes. In his book "On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History", he compared a wide array of heroes.

In 1860, Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher disputed the great man theory by affirming that these heroes are simply the product of their times and their actions the results of social conditions.

---

Trait Theory (1930's - 1940's)

The trait leadership theory believes that people are either born or are made with certain qualities that will make them excel in leadership roles. That is, certain qualities such as intelligence, sense of responsibility, creativity and other values puts anyone in the shoes of a good leader. In fact, Gordon Allport, an American psychologist,"...identified almost 18,000 English personality-relevant terms" (Matthews, Deary & Whiteman, 2003, p. 3).

The trait theory of leadership focused on analyzing mental, physical and social characteristic in order to gain more understanding of what is the characteristic or the combination of characteristics that are common among leaders.

There were many shortfalls with the trait leadership theory. However, from a psychology of personalities approach, Gordon Allport's studies are among the first ones and have brought, for the study of leadership, the behavioural approach.

• In the 1930s the field of Psychometrics was in its early years.
• Personality traits measurement weren't reliable across studies.
• Study samples were of low level managers
• Explanations weren't offered as to the relation between each characteristic and its impact on leadership.
• The context of the leader wasn't considered.

Many studies have analyzed the traits among existing leaders in the hope of uncovering those responsible for ones leadership abilities! In vain, the only characteristics that were identified among these individuals were those that were slightly taller and slightly more intelligent!

---

Behavioural Theories (1940's - 1950's)

In reaction to the trait leadership theory, the behavioural theories are offering a new perspective, one that focuses on the behaviours of the leaders as opposed to their mental, physical or social characteristics. Thus, with the evolutions in psychometrics, notably the factor analysis, researchers were able to measure the cause an effects relationship of specific human behaviours from leaders. From this point forward anyone with the right conditioning could have access to the once before elite club of naturally gifted leaders. In other words, leaders are made not born.

The behavioural theories first divided leaders in two categories. Those that were concerned with the tasks and those concerned with the people. Throughout the literature these are referred to as different names, but the essence are identical.

Associated Theories

• The Managerial Grid Model / Leadership Grid
• Role Theory

---

Contingency Theories (1960's)

The Contingency Leadership theory argues that there is no single way of leading and that every leadership style should be based on certain situations, which signifies that there are certain people who perform at the maximum level in certain places; but at minimal performance when taken out of their element.

To a certain extent contingency leadership theories are an extension of the trait theory, in the sense that human traits are related to the situation in which the leaders exercise their leadership. It is generally accepted within the contingency theories that leader are more likely to express their leadership when they feel that their followers will be responsive.

Associated Theories

• Fiedler's contingency theory
• Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory
• Path-goal theory
• Vroom-Yetton-Jago decision-making model of leadership
• Cognitive Resource Theory
• Strategic Contingencies Theory

---

Transactional leadership Theories (1970's)

Transactional theories, also known as exchange theories of leadership, are characterized by a transaction made between the leader and the followers. In fact, the theory values a positive and mutually beneficial relationship.

For the transactional theories to be effective and as a result have motivational value, the leader must find a means to align to adequately reward (or punish) his follower, for performing leader-assigned task. In other words, transactional leaders are most efficient when they develop a mutual reinforcing environment, for which the individual and the organizational goals are in sync.

The transactional theorists state that humans in general are seeking to maximize pleasurable experiences and to diminish un-pleasurable experiences. Thus, we are more likely to associate ourselves with individuals that add to our strengths.

Associated Theories

• Leader-member Exchange (LMX)

---

Transformational Leadership Theories (1970s)

The Transformational Leadership theory states that this process is by which a person interacts with others and is able to create a solid relationship that results in a high percentage of trust, that will later result in an increase of motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, in both leaders and followers.

The essence of transformational theories is that leaders transform their followers through their inspirational nature and charismatic personalities. Rules and regulations are flexible, guided by group norms. These attributes provide a sense of belonging for the followers as they can easily identify with the leader and its purpose.

Leadership Styles

Kurt Lewin (1890-1947)

Kurt Lewin was an early 20th century psychologist who is credited with popularizing the field of social psychology and pioneering work in group dynamics and organizational psychology. 

He identified three specific climates of leadership: 

1. Authoritarian leadership creates a division of labor while remaining uninvolved in the labor action. The role of the leader is to evaluate the actions of subordinates and oversee the outcome.
2. Democratic leadership works in collaboration with staff to arrive at decisions. Input is gathered from all involved, with the leader offering expert advice and experience. Any evaluations and assessments are objective and based in fact and contribute to a climate of respect.
3. Laissez-faire leadership assumes no clear leadership role, offering advice and input only when asked. This type of climate lacks structure and provides very little assessment or feedback from the leader. 

1. Laissez-Faire Leadership

This type is the largely hands-off with minimal direction and supervision from the manager to the staff. The key to using this method is having well trained and efficient directors who can work as intermediaries between you and your employees.

2. Autocratic Leadership

This is a leadership style that has become something of a relic in today's business environment. The reason is that most employees work better without the overbearing presence of their boss around at all times. However, there are some who would argue that the Autocratic methods are still as effective as they were in Feudal Europe - but only if properly balanced with feedback and face time.

3. Participative Leadership

The third approach is to find a happy medium between the above two methods. These managers back-off more to allow people to tap their creativity and think independently using their own initiative, while still maintaining enough control to guide the overall vision of teams without imposing their own vision on their decisions. In short, you're giving them a much greater lead and will need to be more trusting of decisions made by your directors.

These three leadership types form the foundation of most styles used by corporate leaders today. However, they do not necessarily encompass every philosophy on the nature of a business and how leadership skills should be developed.

Other Leadership Styles

Other leadership styles that are popular in a number of fields, or that have been popular in the past include:

4. Situational Leadership

This has leaders using their leadership skills in different methods depending on if the situation calls for task or relationship oriented decisions.

5. Transactional Leadership

This technique has you getting things done within the current methods accepted by the industry. Many people refer to this method as a "by the book" management style.

6. Transformational Leadership

The opposite of Transactional, Transformational Leadership revolves around breeding change in as many ways as possible.

7. Strategic Leadership

Many large corporations, as well as the armed forces, use this leadership style - essentially working to outwit an opponent at every step.

Daniel Goleman Leadership Styles

The Goleman Leadership Styles (or the six emotional leadership styles) are styles that leaders can take to make sure of a healthy working environment. According to the model, leaders should have the ability to deal with the changing environment on the work floor.

Common Leadership Styles

1. Democratic Leadership

Commonly Effective

Democratic leadership is exactly what it sounds like -- the leader makes decisions based on the input of each team member. Although he or she makes the final call, each employee has an equal say on a project's direction.

Democratic leadership is one of the most effective leadership styles because it allows lower-level employees to exercise authority they'll need to use wisely in future positions they might hold. It also resembles how decisions can be made in company board meetings.

For example, in a company board meeting, a democratic leader might give the team a few decision-related options. They could then open a discussion about each option. After a discussion, this leader might take the board's thoughts and feedback into consideration, or they might open this decision up to a vote.

2. Autocratic Leadership

Rarely Effective

Autocratic leadership is the inverse of democratic leadership. In this leadership style, the leader makes decisions without taking input from anyone who reports to them. Employees are neither considered nor consulted prior to a direction, and are expected to adhere to the decision at a time and pace stipulated by the leader.

An example of this could be when a manager changes the hours of work shifts for multiple employees without consulting anyone -- especially the effected employees.

Frankly, this leadership style stinks. Most organizations today can't sustain such a hegemonic culture without losing employees. It's best to keep leadership more open to the intellect and perspective of the rest of the team.

3. Laissez-Faire Leadership

Sometimes Effective

If you remember your high-school French, you'll accurately assume that laissez-faire leadership is the least intrusive form of leadership. The French term "laissez faire" literally translates to "let them do," and leaders who embrace it afford nearly all authority to their employees.

In a young startup, for example, you might see a laissez-faire company founder who makes no major office policies around work hours or deadlines. They might put full trust into their employees while they focus on the overall workings of running the company.

Although laissez-faire leadership can empower employees by trusting them to work however they'd like, it can limit their development and overlook critical company growth opportunities. Therefore, it's important that this leadership style is kept in check.

4. Strategic Leadership

Commonly Effective

Strategic leaders sit at the intersection between a company's main operations and its growth opportunities. He or she accepts the burden of executive interests while ensuring that current working conditions remain stable for everyone else.

This is a desirable leadership style in many companies because strategic thinking supports multiple types of employees at once. However, leaders who operate this way can set a dangerous precedent with respect to how many people they can support at once, and what the best direction for the company really is if everyone is getting their way at all times.

5. Transformational Leadership

Sometimes Effective

Transformational leadership is always "transforming" and improving upon the company's conventions. Employees might have a basic set of tasks and goals that they complete every week or month, but the leader is constantly pushing them outside of their comfort zone.

When starting a job with this type of leader, all employees might get a list of goals to reach, as well as deadlines for reaching them. While the goals might seem simple at first, this manager might pick up the pace of deadlines or give you more and more challenging goals as you grow with the company.

This is a highly encouraged form of leadership among growth-minded companies because it motivates employees to see what they're capable of. But transformational leaders can risk losing sight of everyone's individual learning curves if direct reports don't receive the right coaching to guide them through new responsibilities.

6. Transactional Leadership

Sometimes Effective

Transactional leaders are fairly common today. These managers reward their employees for precisely the work they do. A marketing team that receives a scheduled bonus for helping generate a certain number of leads by the end of the quarter is a common example of transactional leadership.

When starting a job with a transactional boss, you might receive an incentive plan that motivates you to quickly master your regular job duties. For example, if you work in marketing, you might receive a bonus for sending 10 marketing emails. On the other hand, a transformational leader might only offer you a bonus if your work results in a large amount of newsletter subscriptions.

Transactional leadership helps establish roles and responsibilities for each employee, but it can also encourage bare-minimum work if employees know how much their effort is worth all the time. This leadership style can use incentive programs to motivate employees, but they should be consistent with the company's goals and used in addition to unscheduled gestures of appreciation.

7. Coach-Style Leadership

Commonly Effective

Similarly to a sports team's coach, this leader focuses on identifying and nurturing the individual strengths of each member on his or her team. They also focus on strategies that will enable their team work better together. This style offers strong similarities to strategic and democratic leadership, but puts more emphasis on the growth and success of individual employees.

Rather than forcing all employees to focus on similar skills and goals, this leader might build a team where each employee has an expertise or skillset in something different. In the longrun, this leader focuses on creating strong teams that can communicate well and embrace each other's unique skillsets in order to get work done.

A manager with this leadership style might help employees improve on their strengths by giving them new tasks to try, offering them guidance, or meeting to discuss constructive feedback. They might also encourage one or more team members to expand on their strengths by learning new skills from other teammates.

8. Bureaucratic Leadership

Rarely Effective

Bureaucratic leaders go by the books. This style of leadership might listen and consider the input of employees -- unlike autocratic leadership -- but the leader tends to reject an employee's input if it conflicts with company policy or past practices.

You may run into a bureaucratic leader at a larger, older, or traditional company. At these companies, when a colleague or employee proposes a strong strategy that seems new or non-traditional, bureaucratic leaders may reject it. Their resistance might be because the company has already been successful with current processes and trying something new could waste time or resources if it doesn't work. 

Employees under this leadership style might not feel as controlled as they would under autocratic leadership, but there is still a lack of freedom in how much people are able to do in their roles. This can quickly shut down innovation, and is definitely not encouraged for companies who are chasing ambitious goals and quick growth.

Leadership Style Assessment

Leaders can carry a mix of the above leadership styles depending on their industry and the obstacles they face. At the root of these styles, according to leadership experts Bill Torbert and David Rooke, are what are called "action logics."

These action logics assess "how [leaders] interpret their surroundings and react when their power or safety is challenged."

That's the idea behind a popular management survey tool called the Leadership Development Profile. Created by professor Torbert and psychologist Susanne Cook-Greuter -- and featured in the book, Personal and Organizational Transformations -- the survey relies on a set of 36 open-ended sentence completion tasks to help researchers better understand how leaders develop and grow.

Below, we've outlined six action logics using open-ended sentences that help describe each one. See how much you agree with each sentence and, at the bottom, find out which leadership style you uphold based on the action logics you most agreed with.

1. Individualist

The individualist, according to Rooke and Tolbert, is self-aware, creative, and primarily focused on their own actions and development as opposed to overall organizational performance. This action logic is exceptionally driven by the desire to exceed personal goals and constantly improve their skills.

Here are some things an individualist might say:

I1. "A good leader should always trust their own intuition over established organizational processes."

I2. "It's important to be able to relate to others so I can easily communicate complex ideas to them."

I3. "I'm more comfortable with progress than sustained success."

2. Strategist

Strategists are acutely aware of the environments in which they operate. They have a deep understanding of the structures and processes that make their businesses tick, but they're also able to consider these frameworks critically and evaluate what could be improved.

Here are some things a strategist might say:

S1. "A good leader should always be able to build a consensus in divided groups."

S2. "It's important to help develop the organization as a whole, as well as the growth and individual achievements of my direct reports."

S3. "Conflict is inevitable, but I'm knowledgeable enough about my team's personal and professional relationships to handle the friction."

3. Alchemist

Rooke and Tolbert describe this charismatic action logic as the most highly evolved and effective at managing organizational change. What distinguishes alchemists from other action logics is their unique ability to see the big picture in everything, but also fully understand the need to take details seriously. Under an alchemist leader, no department or employee is overlooked.

Here are some things an alchemist might say:

A1. "A good leader helps their employees reach their highest potential, and possesses the necessary empathy and moral awareness to get there."

A2. "It's important to make a profound and positive impact on whatever I'm working on."

A3. "I have a unique ability to balance short-term needs and long-term goals."

4. Opportunist

Opportunist are guided by a certain level of mistrust of others, relying on a facade of control to keep their employees in line. "Opportunists tend to regard their bad behavior as legitimate in the cut and thrust of an eye-for-an-eye world," Rooke and Tolbert write.

Here are some things an opportunist might say:

O1. "A good leader should always view others as potential competition to be bested, even if it's at the expense of their professional development."

O2. "I reserve the right to reject the input of those who question or criticize my ideas."

5. Diplomat

Unlike the opportunist, the diplomat isn't concerned with competition or assuming control over situations. Instead, this action logic seeks to cause minimal impact on their organization by conforming to existing norms and completing their daily tasks with as little friction as possible.

Here are some things a diplomat might say:

D1. "A good leader should always resist change since it risks causing instability among their direct reports."

D2. "It's important to provide the 'social glue' in team situations, safely away from conflict."

D3. "I tend to thrive in more team-oriented or supporting leadership roles."

6. Expert

The expert is a pro in their given field, constantly striving to perfect their knowledge of a subject and perform to meet their own high expectations. Rooke and Tolbert describe the expert as a talented individual contributor and a source of knowledge for the team. But this action logic does lack something central to many good leaders: emotional intelligence.

Here are some things a diplomat might say:

E1. "A good leader should prioritize their own pursuit of knowledge over the needs of the organization and their direct reports."

E2. "When problem solving with others in the company, my opinion tends to be the correct one."

Which Leader Are You?

ACTION LOGIC SENTENCE	LEADERSHIP STYLE
S3	Democratic
O1, O2, E1, E2	Autocratic
D2, D3, E1	Laissez-Faire
S1, S2, A3	Strategic
I1, I2, I3, A1, A2	Transformational
D3	Transactional
D1	Bureaucratic