coercAuthor

page: 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19

Beyond the Cain-Abel Culture, page 7

The Coercive Leadership Style

The coercive leader expects and demands immediate and full compliance. For him leadership is a one way, top-down thing with little if any concern for the individual character of the people under him. In the study described by Goleman, the coercive style is very ineffective in most environments. Exceptions are emergency situations where an operation has to be rescued at the last moment. But even there success is not guaranteed, especially if coercion is used exclusively.

In terms of climate, flexibility and responsibility are hit the hardest. The extreme top-down decision making allows the people no room for individual expression, it kills innovation and fosters a pencil pusher attitude with the main objective becoming survival on the job. Rewards are rarely given – people have no choice anyway. Clarity also suffers because people don’t understand how they contribute to the whole – that’s not their business. Thus commitment to the whole is low, so are the standards that people set.

The coercive style is effective only in few situations. These can be classified either as emergencies or as environments that require very little skill or individual commitment. Even in these cases the effect on climate is devastating. It just doesn’t matter.

The Authoritative Leadership Style

The authoritative style gets its name from the natural authority of the leader – not the legal authority that comes with position. An authoritative leader has a clear vision and goes for it with enthusiasm. While he mobilizes people towards a vision he does not dig down into the individual implementation details or demand complete obedience to the details like the coercive leader.

The authoritative leader may have experienced success in a similar situation in the past. Or his skills and talents may be exactly what are needed in a given situation. If he/she then acts with confidence and enthusiasm all this results in a natural authority that motivates people to contribute what they can.

The authoritative leader will describe the vision and be able to delegate the implementation to the people under him. He can give freedom in the details and lead based on results.

It is clear that the vision has to be described and that individuals need to see how they fit into the bigger picture. Otherwise the freedom can lead to confusion. The vision has to make its way into the planning process, goals need to be clearly defined and connected with the vision and the bottom line. However, also the individual aspects of the contributors make its way into the operation.

This style comes out as the winner among the six. It creates a high quality working environment, driving up all the factors that contribute to climate. Communicating the vision clearly leads to clarity of focus. Focusing on the vision rather than the detail of implementation improves flexibility. As people are encouraged to contribute on their own, they are willing to take responsibility for the outcome and thus commitment increases. The standard of judgment is whether a contribution furthers the vision.