Coaches are privileged to work with leaders developing their personal approaches to shaping organisational progress. Sometimes these are formal leaders with rank or role clearly defined; on other occasions, their exists the powerful informal leaders recognised by everyone (other than the systems) due to their positive impact and influence.
Leaders are not necessarily an easy group with whom to work. They lead, they influence, they are heard, and they have expectations of being in charge. In other words, they are ‘apart’ from the mainstream, holding both power and influence. Many have been starved of actionable feedback, others just don’t welcome it preferring a professional grooming of their current talent. And some are just astoundingly good in their role.
By developing enhanced listening skills, increased observations around micro behaviours and amplified scrutiny on how they interacted with others, it becomes possible to see clear differences in leadership approaches. We argue there are at least six types of leaders operating within organisations. These inform our practices in working with them and hopefully may be helpful to others.
Categories of leadership:
- Those formal leaders who wanted to constantly learn to be the best they could be. They often demonstrated their vulnerability and lacked initial self-confidence. Their emotional intelligence (EI) was tangible and their impact with individuals and teams was exceptional. They clearly understood the context within which they operated.
- Those informal leaders who worked without official organisational mandate. They valued their own practical experiences and learned from others. They were professionally gifted, talented, had incredible EI skills (though they didn’t know it) and could lead their colleagues through any period of risk and tension. They were rarely recognised by organisations as their unorthodoxy threatened formal systems.
- Those who quickly developed a protective mask to hide their vulnerability. They had great intent, a commitment to EI, but couldn’t fully trust themselves or others. And without judging them, their behaviours were often shaped by complex and relatable past experiences. Conscious of their maskthey were willing to work on its impact.
- Those who believed themselves to be entitled – whose professional journey was often mapped by others from a similar ilk whom they in turn emulated. They had clear organisationally recognised talent, yet their behaviours too often vied with their decreed values.
- Those whose leadership was purely performative. Many interactions, including those with their coach, were a demonstration of carefully staged enactments; the creation of a ‘leadership’ character, an ‘other’ with whom people should engage. The true self rarely emerged.
- Those who were disproportionately self-absorbed. Disagreeable individuals in whose company one always felt somewhat diminished. Cognisant of the systems organisations utilised to recognise talent, they performed these for exclusive self-benefit. They could achieve short term performance improvement through a disordered attachment to numbers and an intimidatory style of management.
Clearly this is an oversimplification, and the purpose here, is to present a mere indication of leadership approaches that may be operating within organisations. As one moves from number 1 through to 6 a few things happen:
- The observable EI skills deteriorate. Great leaders know when to use soft skills appropriately and they have the compassion to make suitable change happen for individuals and teams. They recognise that personal self-confidence is a permanent work in progress and that self-doubt is a normative attitude of highly successful individuals. They create sustained performance improvement.
- Moving down the categories, individuals begin to focus on themselves, increasingly at the expense of others. It becomes a competitive environment within which they perform either as themselves or as some shadow of the self – a construct with a manicured persona. Win / win is rarely found in their language and mindset.
- Towards the bottom end of the list, leaders become unpleasant people to be avoided at all costs. Some lead utterly cheerless lives and can cause damage to themselves, others, and organisational reputation.
Our sense is that most organisations have all of the above operating as leaders. So, might it be worthwhile reflecting on a few questions:
- Who does your organisation attract, support, nurture towards achieving high leadership performance?
- Who are your informal leaders and what are you doing to recognise, encourage and replicate their behaviours.
- Which talents are you overlooking because your systems are too rigid?
- Is there room for diversity in all its formats within your organisation?
- How do you prevent caustic leaders gaining a foothold in your organisation?
- What leaders do you require that will move your organisation from a fixation on change towards an obsession with progress?
There are too many organisations failing to think through their leadership agenda and then complaining about the leaders they employ.
Dr Mark Kilgallon