Book Chapter 4: Understanding Philosophy and Styles PDF

4 Understanding Philosophy and Styles 142 Introduction What is your philosophy of leadership? Are you an in-charge type of leader who closely monitors followers? Or are you a laid-back type of leader who gives followers a lot of rein? Whether you are one or the other or somewhere in between, it is i...

4 Understanding Philosophy and Styles 142 Introduction What is your philosophy of leadership? Are you an in-charge type of leader who closely monitors followers? Or are you a laid-back type of leader who gives followers a lot of rein? Whether you are one or the other or somewhere in between, it is important to recognize your personal philosophy of leadership. This philosophy affects how others respond to you, how they respond to their work, and, in the end, how effective you are as a leader. What Does “Philosophy of Leadership” Mean? In this chapter, we will discuss how a person’s view of people, work, and human nature forms a personal philosophy of leadership. In addition, this chapter will examine how that philosophy is demonstrated in three of the most commonly observed styles of personal leadership: the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire styles. We will discuss the nature of these styles and the implications each has for effective leadership performance. 143 Leadership Philosophy Explained Each of us approaches leadership with a unique set of beliefs and attitudes about the nature of people and the nature of work. This is the basis for our philosophy of leadership. For example, some think people are basically good and will happily work if given the chance. Others think people are prone to be a bit lazy and need to be nudged to complete their work. These beliefs about people and work have a significant impact on an individual’s leadership style and probably come into play in every aspect of a person’s leadership. Understanding Leadership Philosophy Do you think people like work, or do you think people find work unpleasant? This was one of the central questions addressed by Douglas McGregor in his famous book The Human Side of Enterprise (1960). McGregor believed that managers need to understand their core assumptions about human nature and assess how these assumptions relate to their managerial practice. In particular, McGregor was interested in how managers view the motivations of workers and their attitudes toward work. He believed that understanding these motivations was central to knowing how to become an effective manager. To explain the ways that managers approach workers, McGregor proposed two general theories—Theory X and Theory Y. McGregor believed that by exploring the major assumptions of each of these theories people could develop a better understanding of their own viewpoints on human behavior and the relationship of these viewpoints to their leadership style. Below is a description of both theories. As you read, ask yourself if the assumptions of the theory are consistent or inconsistent with your own attitudes and philosophy of leadership. 144 Theory X Theory X is made up of three assumptions about human nature and human behavior (see Table 4.1). Taken together, these assumptions represent a philosophy of leadership that many leaders exhibit to one degree or another. Assumption #1. The average person dislikes work and will avoid it if possible. This assumption argues that people do not like work; they view it as unpleasant, distasteful, or simply a necessary evil. According to this assumption, if given the chance, people would choose not to work. An example of this assumption is the worker who says, “I only go to work to be P-A-I-D. If I didn’t need to pay my bills, I would never work.” People with this philosophy would avoid work if they could. Table 4.1 Assumptions of McGregor’s Theory X Table 4.1 Assumptions of McGregor’s Theory X McGregor’s Theory X 1. People dislike work. 2. People need to be directed and controlled. 3. People want security, not responsibility. Theory X Assumption #2. People need to be direct and controlled. This assumption is derived directly from the first assumption. Since people naturally do not like work, management needs to set up a system of incentives and rewards regarding work that needs to be accomplished because workers are often unwilling or unable to motivate themselves. This assumption says that without external direction and incentives people would be unmotivated to work. An example of this is the high school teacher who persuades students to hand in homework assignments by threatening them with bad grades. 145 The teacher forces students to perform because the teacher thinks that the students are unwilling to do it or incapable of doing it without that force being applied. From the perspective of Theory X, leaders play a significant role in encouraging others to accomplish their work. Assumption #3. People want security, not responsibility. The picture this assumption paints is of workers who want their leaders to take care of them, protect them, and make them feel safe. Because it is too difficult to set their own goals, workers want management to do it for them. This can only happen when managers establish the guidelines for workers. An example of this assumption can be observed at a fast-food restaurant where the employees only have to focus on completing the specific tasks set before them (e.g., cleaning the shake machines or making fries) and are not required to take initiative on their own. In general, many fast-food restaurant workers are not required to accept many challenging responsibilities. Instead, they are told what to do, and how and when to do it. Consistent with this assumption, this example highlights how some workers are not ambitious but want job security above everything else. So what does it mean if a person’s personal leadership style or philosophy is similar to Theory X? It means these leaders have a tendency to view workers as lazy and uninterested in work because they do not value work. As a result, Theory X leaders tend to be directive and controlling. They supervise followers closely and are quick to both praise and criticize them as they see fit. At times, these leaders remind workers of their goal (e.g., to be P-A-ID) or threaten them with punishment to persuade them to accomplish tasks. As the person in charge, a Theory X leader sees his or her leadership role as instrumental in getting the job done. Theory X leaders also believe it is their role to motivate followers because these workers have little self-motivation. Because of this belief, these leaders take on the responsibility for their followers’ actions. From the Theory X perspective, it is clear that followers have a need for leadership. 146 Theory Y Like Theory X, Theory Y is based on several specific assumptions about human nature and behavior (see Table 4.2). Taken together, the assumptions of Theory Y present a distinctly different perspective from the ideas set forth in Theory X. It is a perspective that can be observed to a degree in many leaders today. Theory X and Theory Y Assumption #1. The average person does not inherently dislike work. Doing work is as natural as play. Rather than viewing work as a burden or bad, this assumption suggests people see work as satisfying and not as a punishment. It is a natural activity for them. In fact, given the chance, people are happy to work. An example of this can be seen in what former president Jimmy Carter has done in his retirement. He has devoted much of his time and energy to constructing homes throughout the United States and around the world with Habitat for Humanity. Certainly, the former president does not need to work: He does so because work is natural for him. All his life, Carter has been used to making a contribution to the well-being of others. Working with Habitat for Humanity is another opportunity for him to contribute. Some people view work as a natural part of their lives. Assumption #2. People will show responsibility and selfcontrol toward goals to which they are committed. As opposed to Theory X, which suggests that people need to be supervised and controlled, Theory Y suggests that people can and will make a conscious choice to work on their own. Table 4.2 Assumptions of McGregor’s Theory Y Table 4.2 Assumptions of McGregor’s Theory Y McGregor’s Theory Y 1. People like work. 147 2. People are self-motivated. 3. People accept and seek responsibility. People can be committed to the objectives of their work. Consider some examples from the sports world. Successful athletes are often highly committed to their goals and usually do not need to be controlled or supervised closely. Coaches design training plans for these athletes, but the athletes do the work themselves. A successful long-distance runner does not need to be pushed to run 60 training miles a week in preparation for a marathon because the runner is already motivated to run long distances. Similarly, an Olympic swimmer does not need to be forced to do daily 3-mile pool workouts at 5:00 A.M. because the swimmer chooses to do this independently of any coach’s urging. These athletes are self-directed because they are committed to their goals. This is the point of Theory Y. When people can find commitment in their work, they will work without needing leaders to motivate or cajole them. Put another way, when people have a passion for their work, they will do it even without outside direction. Assumption #3. In the proper environment, the average person learns to accept and seek responsibility. While Theory X argues that people lack ambition, prefer to be directed, and want security, Theory Y assumes that the average person is inherently resourceful and, if given the chance, will seek to take responsibility. If given the chance, people have the capacity to engage in a wide range of goal-setting and creative problem-solving activities. Theory Y argues that, given the opportunity, people will act independently and be productive. For example, two university students working in the main stacks section of the library were required to complete a checklist whenever they worked to be sure that they correctly carried out various sorting and shelving activities. The checklist was long, cumbersome, and repetitious, however. Frustrated by the checklist, the students took it upon themselves to design an entirely new, streamlined checklist. The new checklist for sorting and shelving was very clear and concise, and was playful in appearance. After reviewing the checklist and giving it a short trial period, management at the library adopted the new checklist and required that it be implemented throughout the entire library. In this example, library management provided an environment where students felt comfortable suggesting a rather major change in how their work was to be completed. In addition, management was willing to accept and adopt a student-initiated work change. It is not unrealistic to imagine that these students will be more confident initiating ideas or taking on new challenges in other work settings in the future. So if a leader’s philosophy of leadership is similar to Theory Y, what does it mean? It means that the leader views people as capable and interested in working. Even though Theory Y 148 leaders may define work requirements, they do not try to control workers. To these leaders, followers are not lazy; on the contrary, they naturally want to work. In addition, these leaders do not think they need to try to motivate followers or make them work since workers are capable of motivating themselves. Using coercion or external reinforcement schemes is not a part of their leadership repertoire. Theory Y leaders are very attuned to helping followers find their passion for what they want to do. These leaders know that when followers are committed to their work, they are more motivated to do the job. Allowing followers to seek and accept responsibilities on their own comes easily for Theory Y leaders. In short, Theory Y leadership means supporting followers without the need to direct or control them. In the late 1970s and 1980s, a new leadership theory tangentially related to Theory X and Theory Y was developed by William Ouchi (1981). Ouchi contrasted the collectivistic culture of Japanese companies—which had begun to dominate markets, especially in automobiles and electronics—with the individualism stressed in American organizations and developed an approach that was a hybrid of the two called Theory Z. A Theory Z organization is one that emphasizes common cultural values, beliefs, and objectives among its members with a focus on communication, collaboration, and consensual decision making. At the same time, some of the individualistic values of American organizations are also incorporated. Theory Z organizations still maintain formal authority structures and an emphasis on individual contributions and recognizing individual achievements. However, the individual decision making of the leader that is found in both Theory X and Theory Y is not a characteristic of a Theory Z organization. Leadership in Challenging Times In summary, all of us maintain certain basic beliefs and assumptions about human nature and work that form our leadership philosophy. The next section discusses how that philosophy impacts your behaviors as a leader, or your leadership style. Whether a person’s philosophy is similar to Theory X or similar to Theory Y, it affects his or her style of leadership. The challenge is to understand the philosophical underpinnings of your own leadership style. 149 Leadership Styles Explained What behaviors do you exhibit as a leader? Do you like to be in control and keep up on the activities of your followers? Or do you believe in a more hands-off approach in leading others, letting them make decisions on their own? Whatever your behaviors are as a leader, they are indicative of your leadership style. Leadership style is defined as the behaviors of leaders, focusing on what leaders do and how they act. This includes leaders’ actions toward followers in a variety of contexts. As noted in the previous section, your leadership style is driven by your personal leadership philosophy. In the following section, we discuss the most commonly observed leadership styles associated with Theory X and Theory Y: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. While none of these styles emerges directly from Theory X or Theory Y, the authoritarian and democratic styles closely mirror the ideas set forth in these theories, respectively. Styles of Leaders and Managers The primary work on styles of leadership was by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939), who analyzed the impact of various leadership styles on small group behavior. Using groups of 10-year-old boys who met after school to engage in hobby activities, the researchers analyzed what happened when their adult leaders used one of three styles: authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire. The groups of boys experienced each of the three styles of leadership for a six-week period. The outcome of the study by Lewin and colleagues was a detailed description of the nature of the leadership behaviors used for each of the three styles (White & Lippitt, 1968). They also described the impact each of these three styles had on group members. The following sections describe and elaborate on their findings and the implications of using each of these leadership styles. Be aware that these styles are not distinct entities (e.g., like personality traits). They overlap each other. That is, a leader can demonstrate more than one style in any given situation. For example, a leader may be authoritarian about some issues and democratic about others, or a leader may be authoritarian at some points during a project and democratic at others. As leaders, we may display aspects of all of these styles. 150 Authoritarian Leadership Style In many ways, the authoritarian leadership style is very similar to Theory X. For example, authoritarian leaders perceive followers as needing direction. The authoritarian leader needs to control followers and what they do. Authoritarian leaders emphasize that they are in charge, exerting influence and control over group members. They determine tasks and procedures for group members but may remain aloof from participating in group discussions. Authoritarian leaders do not encourage communication among group members; instead, they prefer that communication be directed to them. In evaluating others, authoritarian leaders give praise and criticism freely, but it is given based on their own personal standards rather than based on objective criticism. Some have argued that authoritarian leadership represents a rather pessimistic, negative, and discouraging view of others. For example, an authoritarian leader might say something like “Because my workers are lazy, I need to tell them what to do.” Others would argue that authoritarian leadership is a much-needed form of leadership—it serves a positive purpose, particularly for people who seek security above responsibility. In many contexts, authoritarian leadership is used to give direction, set goals, and structure work. For example, when employees are just learning a new job, authoritarian leadership lets them know the rules and standards for what they are supposed to do. Authoritarian leaders are very efficient and successful in motivating others to accomplish work. In these contexts, authoritarian leadership is very useful. The Authoritarian Leadership Style What are the outcomes of authoritarian leadership? Authoritarian leadership has both pluses and minuses. On the positive side, it is efficient and productive. Authoritarian leaders give direction and clarity to people’s work and accomplish more in a shorter period. Furthermore, authoritarian leadership is useful in establishing goals and work standards. On the negative side, it fosters dependence, submissiveness, and a loss of individuality. The creativity and personal growth of followers may be hindered. It is possible that, over time, followers will lose interest in what they are doing and become dissatisfied with their work. If that occurs, authoritarian leadership can create discontent, hostility, and even aggression. In addition, authoritarian leadership can become abusive leadership, where these leaders use their influence, power, and control for their personal interests or to coerce followers to engage in unethical or immoral activities. For example, a coach who withholds playing time from athletes who openly disagree with his play calls or a boss who requires salaried 151 employees to work up to 20 hours of overtime each week or “be replaced with someone who will” are both examples of the dark side of authoritarian leadership. While the negative aspects of authoritarian leadership appear to outweigh the positive, it is not difficult to imagine contexts where authoritarian leadership would be the preferred style of leadership. For example, in a busy hospital emergency room, it may be very appropriate for the leader in charge of triaging patients to be authoritarian with various types of emergencies. The same could be true in other contexts, such as the chaperone of a middle school canoe trip, or the coach of a high school team during the state finals basketball tournament. Despite the negatives of authoritarian leadership, this form of leadership is common and necessary in many situations. 152 Democratic Leadership Style The democratic leadership style strongly resembles the assumptions of Theory Y. Democratic leaders treat followers as fully capable of doing work on their own. Rather than controlling followers, democratic leaders work with followers, trying hard to treat everyone fairly, without putting themselves above followers. In essence, they see themselves as guides rather than as directors. They give suggestions to others, but never with any intention of changing them. Helping each follower reach personal goals is important to a democratic leader. Democratic leaders do not use “top-down” communication; instead, they speak on the same level as their followers. Making sure everyone is heard is a priority. They listen to followers in supportive ways and assist them in becoming self-directed. In addition, they promote communication between group members and in certain situations are careful to draw out the less-articulate members of the group. Democratic leaders provide information, guidance, and suggestions, but do so without giving orders and without applying pressure. In their evaluations of followers, democratic leaders give objective praise and criticism. The Democratic Leadership Style The outcomes of democratic leadership are mostly positive. First, democratic leadership results in greater group member satisfaction, commitment, and cohesiveness. Second, under democratic leadership there is more friendliness, mutual praise, and group mindedness. Followers tend to get along with each other and willingly participate in matters of the group, making more “we” statements and fewer “I” statements. Third, democratic leadership results in stronger worker motivation and greater creativity. People are motivated to pursue their own talents under the supportive structure of democratic leadership. Finally, under a democratic leader group members participate more and are more committed to group decisions. The downside of democratic leadership is that it takes more time and commitment from the leader. Work is accomplished, but not as efficiently as if the leader were authoritarian. 153 Laissez-Faire Leadership Style The laissez-faire leadership style is dissimilar to both Theory X and Theory Y. Laissez-faire leaders do not try to control followers as Theory X leaders do, and they do not try to nurture and guide followers as Theory Y leaders do. Laissez-faire stands alone as a style of leadership; some have labeled it nonleadership. The laissez-faire leader is a nominal leader who engages in minimal influence. As the French phrase implies, laissez-faire leadership means the leader takes a “hands-off, let it ride” attitude toward followers. These leaders recognize followers but are very laid back and make no attempt to influence their activities. Under laissez-faire leadership, followers have freedom to do pretty much what they want to do whenever they want to do it. Laissez-faire leaders make no attempt to appraise or regulate the progress of followers. Destructive Laissez-Faire Leadership Given that laissez-faire leadership involves nominal influence, what are the effects of laissezfaire leadership? Laissez-faire leadership tends to produce primarily negative outcomes. The major effect is that very little is accomplished under a laissez-faire leader. Because people are directionless and at a loss to know what to do, they tend to do nothing. Giving complete freedom results in an atmosphere that most followers find chaotic. Followers prefer some direction; left completely on their own, they become frustrated. Without a sense of purpose and direction, group members have difficulty finding meaning in their work; they become unmotivated and disheartened. As a result, productivity goes down. The Laissez-Faire Leadership Style However, there are situations where the laissez-faire style is successful. People who are selfstarters, who excel at individualized tasks and don’t require ongoing feedback, may prefer working under laissez-faire leaders. For example, Angela is the president of a website development company who uses independent contractors from across the globe. In certain respects, you could describe her leadership style as laissez-faire. The programmers who develop the websites’ code are in Poland, the designer is in India, the content writer is in the United Kingdom, and Angela is in the United States. When developing a site, Angela maps out and communicates the basic 154 framework for the website and then relies on all of the individual contractors to determine the tasks they need to do for the site’s development. Because their tasks can be dependent upon another’s—for example, the designer needs the programmers to write the code to make the page display graphics and images in a certain way—they do communicate with one another, but because of time zone differences, this is mostly done by email. As their leader, Angela is kept apprised of issues and developments through an electronic project management system they share, but because all of the contractors are experts at what they do and trust the other team members to do what they do best, she lets them problem-solve issues and concerns with one another and rarely gets involved. While there are a few situations where laissez-faire leadership is effective, in a majority of situations, it proves to be unsuccessful and unproductive. Leadership Snapshot: Victoria Ransom, Chief Executive, Wildfire 155 © Bloomberg/Contributor/Bloomberg/Getty Images “I don’t believe in hierarchy or creating hierarchy. I believe in earning respect.” That comes from Victoria Ransom, cofounder of social media software company Wildfire Interactive, which grew from an idea to a company with 400 employees and 21,000 clients. The company, which Ransom cofounded with Alain Chuard in 2008, helps companies reach customers over social networks, and was acquired in 2012 by Google for $350 million. Wildfire’s success is largely due to the leadership style and philosophy of Ransom, who serves as the 156 company’s chief executive. Ransom grew up in Scotts Ferry, a rural village in New Zealand where her father was an asparagus farmer and her mother was an office manager for a farming equipment company. Ransom worked in the fields, and it was there that she learned the values of hard work, leading by example, and humility that she brings to Wildfire. Wildfire was actually an afterthought, created to solve a problem that Ransom and Chuard had encountered in running the first company they had formed, Access Trips. Access Trips was an adventure travel company that took small groups of travelers, ages 20–45, to remote destinations, and Ransom and Chuard were looking for a way to promote Access Trips online by giving away a trip on Facebook. They discovered, however, that no software existed to do what they wanted, so they developed their own software to design sweepstakes, contests, or other promotions that could run on Facebook. The software, and Wildfire, was profitable within a year. Clients soon ranged from two-person catering businesses to Sony and Unilever (Coster, 2012). The company grew very quickly, which put Ransom’s values-based culture to the test. “I’ve learned as the company grows, you’re only as good as the leaders you have underneath you,” she says. “You might think that because you’re projecting our values, then the rest of the company is experiencing the values.... [D]irect supervisors become the most important influence on people in the company. Therefore, a big part of leading becomes your ability to pick and guide the right people” (Bryant, 2013). In order to find those right people, it was critical that Wildfire spell out its values and company culture to employees from the outset. To do so, Ransom and Chuard identified what they valued in the people at Wildfire and then met with all the employees in small groups to get their feedback on these values. What resulted was a list of values that the company instilled and demonstrated: passion, team player, humility, and integrity. Also on the list were having the courage to speak up and curiosity. “We really encourage people to constantly question, to stay on top of what’s happening in our industry, to learn what other people in the company are doing. The hope was to break down these walls of ‘them versus us,’” Ransom says (Bryant, 2013). Ransom says a final value they identified was to “do good, and do right by each other” (Bryant, 2013). The values a company purports to have, however, are not so readily maintained. Values and culture have to be universally embraced, or they will crumble. “I think the best way to undermine a company’s values is to put people in leadership positions who are not adhering to the values,” Ransom says, noting that others begin to lose faith in the values. “Until you take action and move those people out, and then everyone gets faith in the values again” (Bryant, 2013). Ransom says one way the company showed its values was when it would let employees go who didn’t live up to the values. Making these hard decisions about people, even if they were good performers, showed employees that “yeah, this company actually puts its money where its mouth is” (Bryant, 2013). 157 Leadership Styles in Practice Each leader has a unique style of leadership. Some are very demanding and assertive while others are more open and participative. Similarly, some leaders could be called micromanagers, while others could be labeled nondirective leaders. Whatever the case, it is useful and instructive to characterize your leadership regarding the degree to which you are authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire. Leadership and Collaboration It is important to note that these styles of leadership are not distinct entities; it is best to think of them as occurring along a continuum, from high leader influence to low leader influence (see Figure 4.1). Leaders who exhibit higher amounts of influence are more authoritarian. Leaders who show a moderate amount of influence are democratic. Those who exhibit little to no influence are laissez-faire. Although we tend to exhibit primarily one style over the others, our personal leadership styles are not fixed and may vary depending on the circumstances. Figure 4.1 Styles of Leadership Consider what your results of the Leadership Styles Questionnaire on page 95 tell you about your leadership style. What is your main style? Are you most comfortable with authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire leadership? If you are the kind of leader who likes to structure work, likes to lay out the ground rules for others, likes to closely supervise your followers, thinks it is your responsibility to make sure followers do their work, wants to be “in charge” or to know what others are doing, and believes strongly that rewarding and punishing followers is necessary, then you are authoritarian. If you are the kind of leader who seldom gives orders or ultimatums to followers, instead trying to work with followers and help them figure out how they want to approach a task or complete their work, then you are primarily democratic. Helping each follower reach his or her own personal goals is important to a democratic leader. 158 In some rare circumstances, you may find you are showing laissez-faire leadership. Although not a preferred style, it is important to be aware when one is being laissez-faire. Laissez-faire leaders take a very low profile to leadership. What followers accomplish is up to them. If you believe that your followers will thrive on complete freedom, then the laissez-faire style may be the right style for you. However, in most situations, laissez-faire leadership hinders success and productivity. 159 Summary All of us have a philosophy of leadership that is based on our beliefs about human nature and work. Some leaders have a philosophy that resembles Theory X: They view workers as unmotivated and needing direction and control. Others have a philosophy similar to Theory Y: They approach workers as self-motivated and capable of working independently without strong direct influence from a leader. Our philosophy of leadership is played out in our style of leadership. There are three commonly observed styles of leadership: authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire. Similar to Theory X, authoritarian leaders perceive followers as needing direction, so they exert strong influence and control. Resembling Theory Y, democratic leaders view followers as capable of self-direction, so they provide counsel and support. Laissez-faire leaders leave followers to function on their own, providing nominal influence and direction. Effective leadership demands that we understand our philosophy of leadership and how it forms the foundations for our style of leadership. This understanding is the first step to becoming a more informed and competent leader. 160