Leadership Styles

Mark, the visionary

I have a strong sense of purpose and progress, and see one of my top priorities is to draw people to the vision. That's what makes me enthusiastic. If you can't communicate, you can't do anything.

I like to see the big picture, and what will happen in the future. I think it's important to look at the future, get around to speak to groups, promote a public image, and keep staff motivated.

I delegate implementation easily because it's the big picture and purpose that count. I don't need to bother with details, and I only do paperwork when I can't get out of it.

Paradox is just a normal part of reality, so don't worry about being too consistent.

Observations from his team members

Mark is not always very good at one-to-one communication.

Without him we'd be sunk. He makes us keep our eye on the ball.

He's very persuasive.

Mark naturally does very well in the number one position, but needs lots of implementers around to translate vision into reality.

Definitely not a details person. Doesn't worry about small mistakes, even when they are important.

Leaders like Mark do well in the limelight so they can appear egotistical, no matter how humble or insecure they really are.

Tends to interpret problems as lack of passion for the vision.

Kate, the pastoral carer

Leadership is really about personal relationships. People are individuals and you have to approach each one differently.

I think it's important to give team members some pastoral care when I see they need it. After all, they are people. Most of the time, I don't have to offer it; they come to me. That's the kind of person I am, I guess.

Building consensus is really important. I want to know that everybody is supportive when it comes to making a decision.

I try to be sensitive to the dynamics in the team and I try to build team unity. I might not always succeed, but I am very respectful of people's feelings, even in business and public meetings.

Our organization's problems are really people's personal problems. Fixing them is sometimes very difficult; it would be easy to create bad feelings in the team. But we've made a lot of progress and I think we have a very good team.

Observations from her team members:

She seems to know everyone. She's a good networker. No, an excellent networker, the best we have."

She sees people's victories as personal victories."

Good at encouraging people. She even nurtures people, especially the young ones coming up or those going through tough times."

She interprets problems as people's personal problems."

She leads by personal influence."

I noticed that she finds our procedures and admin stuff quite easy to follow. Perhaps she focuses on the job and the people, and thinks that rules are a bit of a distraction.

She sees the institution's goals as mainly the sum of people's goals. Other than that, she doesn't have a strong institutional vision or a sense of progress. She places the main value on the personal development of team members."

She's convinced that money doesn't fix problems.

Committed to training. Sees it as a way for people to develop.

She has excellent personal skills and many of the staff ask her advice. She's willing to be their personal confidante.

Perhaps she estranges some people who don’t adjust to the personal style. Cliques could be a problem.

I wonder if the emotional tension and pressure get her down sometimes. Perhaps she could burn out easily.

Kim, the laissez faire

I just give people the job and let them get on with it. They are all good at what they do. They'll figure out their own style and I don't interfere unless I have to.

They can still ask me for help if they get stuck; that's what I'm here for. All I need to do is touch base with them and check that they're still okay.

The organization is the sum of its individual people.

Observations from her team members

She gets on with her job and so do we. Works well.

Good at letting us get on with the job.

Often doesn't notice if we get stuck.

Easy to skip out or pass the buck. But she still makes sure the job gets done.

Doesn't give a lot of direction. Sometimes I don't know what I'm supposed to do.

Luke, the accountant

I usually measure success and failure in terms of money value.

When I see problems, I see them as something that will cost money to fix. You can allocate money to fix the problem. Despite all the touchy-feely stuff, you can't fix problems without resources. Even when money isn't an incentive for people, lack of money is usually a strong disincentive.

Sure, lots of other things are important, but after all, it's about the money, and the goal is to be financially healthy. The budget is the plan.

Observations from his team members

Luke also tries to use money to motivate people and control the organization.

He's best when problems are about money.

Not very good with people's problems; he gives the impression he doesn't care.

Looks like we're expendable when his figures don't add up.

Amanda, the publicist

When people suggest new ideas, my first question is always: "What impressions will we give and what will people think?

Our clients are our focus; our resources are simply a means to make them satisfied with what we do. So we should be looking at everything from their viewpoint first.

Comments from her team members

Very persuasive. Brilliant at putting thoughts together to make people think whatever she wants them to think.

Remarkable ability to predict what clients will think.

Creates a good impression. Not sure that she's always so strong on substance.

Easy to make promises. Harder to deliver the goods.

Professional spin doctor. Tries too hard to please people when she should stick by her guns.

Doesn't it matter what we think? Or are clients the only ones who are important?

Simon, the implementer

I like to get the details right and make plans work on the ground. I think I'm fairly pragmatic; I like to look at what works.

What happens on the ground is what's important. I work hard to get all the systems working effectively, although my friends say I might be a bit of a perfectionist.

The big picture stuff is a bit too vague to be helpful. I think I have a strong sense of purpose, but I don't think I'm all good at communicating it.

Comments from his team members

Carries more than his share of the load when it comes to getting things done.

Brilliant at finding and fixing little mistakes. Saved us from lots of disastrous consequences.

Doesn't notice people's feelings too well. He's not nasty, he just doesn't even see them.

Can be a bit technocratic. He values information and ability, and might use it to control what happens.

Doesn't easily delegate. Tends to see "getting things done" as lots of work for him.

Sometimes micro-manages.

Jeff, the autocrat

All major decisions have to go through me. With our structure, it's always my head on the chopping block, and the current group of staff are very young and inexperienced. So I've had to become more autocratic in my style. I don't mind admitting it.

Besides, leadership is about making decisions quickly. If we wasted time in making decisions, we'd lose lots of opportunities.

Observations from his team members:

Everyone knows where we're going and what we're supposed to be doing.

Tends to make clear decisions very quickly, and is very good in a crisis.

Wants total authority and expects to make all major decisions.

Might tend to micromanage rather than delegate.

Tends to frustrate creative employees, who either let their creativity die or get fed up and leave.

Often lacks empathy. Doesn't listen all that well.

Robyn, the democrat

I try to listen very carefully to the views of the team, even though I usually make the final decision. I find that team members contribute ideas that I haven't thought of, so our team meetings are very helpful.

Sometimes we even come to decisions that I wouldn't have originally agreed with, or perhaps even thought of. It really works well when I can get everybody to contribute their strengths.

Observations from her team members

Can’t make decisions quickly. Not very good in a crisis where she must make decisions alone and quickly.

Good at drawing out people's ideas and strengths.

Everybody in the team is very supportive of our decisions.

Tends to interpret problems as lack of shared understanding.

She's good at navigating grumpy personalities.

Sarah, the administrator

I'm an implementer and a details person. In fact, I'm a lot like Simon. If you forgot about him, have another read. (Link opens new window.)

My job here is basically to say, "Get with the program." I just have to follow a set of policies and procedures, and they are already there. I guess I'm not very creative, especially when it comes to handling quirky problems. When a problem comes up, I tend to look for something in the system to guide me.

Comments from her team members

Sarah is a bureaucrat, pure and simple. But she makes it work for her specific job; she fits in where she does. There are other jobs she couldn't do. Just doesn't have it.

Sarah finds safety in the system.

Sarah isn't very creative, or if she is, it doesn't show in her role here. I don't think she has much initiative in handling issues not addressed by the system.

Tends to interpret problems as procedural problems.

Good at details, especially when working with systems.