Leadership is an oft discussed, frequently touted, and rarely understood concept in politics. In the US primaries, particularly on the Democratic side, it is a focal point in which Hilary Clinton touts her “experience” while Barack Obama talks about “hope.” While many rightly challenge the typical platitudes and generalities of electioneering, there is an underlying and appropriate focus on the individuals pursuing leadership because they unquestionably impact the effectiveness of their enterprises.
In Canada, we have very different individuals that are giving us different choices of leadership. Stephen Harper is pursuing a majority on the premise that he is “a leader” while Stéphane Dion “is not.” Yet, after almost two years in power, I find it interesting that articles are being written about why Harper isn’t making ground, or is even slipping, in polling. So, even if Harper is right that Dion hasn’t been a good leader since his December 2006 victory in Montreal, he’s conveniently ignoring the fact that his own performance has been equally lacking. What both are struggling with, and so many others do in private and public endeavours, is finding the right leadership style that fits with their situation.
In retrospect, I find it distressing that during the Liberal Leadership race in 2006 so few candidates expressed how they were going to lead the party. There was policy, high-level ideas, speeches on the value of experience, but little talk about how they would lead the party. Rae talked about his qualifications for leadership and Kennedy talked about the need to unite the party and move it forward, but there wasn’t any prominent talk about how. For all intents and purposes this was a job interview to take over a struggling, declining company, and no candidates had a clear plan on how they were going to repair the party and restore it to success. In the end a compromise candidate was selected by a small representation of party members based on an agreement struck between two trailing candidates and the unwillingness of the leading candidates to build bridges. If ever there was a set-up for failure, this was it. But it didn’t have to be that way – with the right leadership style Dion could have succeeded, and still can, but he’s got to change the course he’s on because it’s not going anywhere inside or outside of the Liberal Party.
There are different opinions and teachings on leadership styles. One commonality among them is that there are multiple styles and that no single style can succeed in every situation. Like a set of golf clubs, you have to pull the right club out of the bag for the right situation. We’re not talking about duplicity, deceit, or a lack of conviction, we’re talking about skill – an ability to utilize a set of tools for effective leadership.
I have been taught and prefer Daniel Goleman’s six styles of leadership, which need to be reviewed in order to show what political leadership requires and why Harper and Dion are struggling.
Authoritative/Visionary – gives inspiration, motivation, direction, and meaning to the efforts of a company or organization. This style usually has strong beneficial impacts and is best used when undergoing organizational or strategic change or when clear direction is needed. This leader gives the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what.’ It’s versatile and can be used in broad or small settings, but can be negative if over-used or actions don’t back up the words. It’s not appropriate for self-managed teams or participatory decision-making, or when the leader is not seen as credible. When used appropriately, this is a leader that says “follow me” and people do.
Coaching – shares expertise and knowledge by working with others through counselling, encouraging and delegation. Helps develop talent and improve others and can be used to motivate or improve performance in specific individuals or teams. This style is best used in intimate or closed settings that focus on the person and can backfire as condescending, elitist, or arrogant if used in inappropriate or broad areas. It’s also not good, obviously, if the leader lacks the technical expertise.
Affiliative – this is a personal, interactive style that promotes harmony and friendship. It’s good when morale or conflict resolution is needed and requires empathy. It’s less focused on task direction, goals, and standards than on the emotional needs of the team or individual. It’s beneficial in moderate, short-term doses and should not be a dominant style. Overuse will blur the line between a leader and his/her team and is not effective when team or individual performance is an issue. This is an “all carrot and no stick” approach.
Democratic/Participative – this promotes teamwork, involvement, consensus and collaboration. It can be messy, slow, and cause pain if not handled deftly, so its benefits are realized only through smart and able application. It’s a long term approach used to build commitment, generate ideas, and requires competent and informed individuals on the team. Most people will appreciate a democratic approach, but it can undermine authority and decisiveness if over-used (which is often).
Pacesetting – leading by example, it requires strong credentials that demand respect and an effectiveness that people will admire and want to emulate, or can be motivated by. It is task-focused, short-term, and good for coaching highly motivated and competent individuals. This is the “rolling up his/her sleeves” leader that jumps in and helps get the job done or shows how it is done. Benefits are usually short term but can have immediate impact, whereas overuse or poor application can severely undermine the respect for a leader. It’s also not appropriate if the leader cannot do his/her own work as a result or when their reports need direction, development, and co-ordination.
Coercive/Directive – probably the most overused and most detrimental, this is the “do as I say” style. It’s threatening, intimidating, and demoralizing if used more than the rarest of occasions. It’s good when decisive, quick action is needed such as a crisis or dramatic shake-up, but turns negative very quickly if people sense it’s an immediate fall-back or worse, the first one used in most situations. This is an “all stick and no carrot” approach.
These styles are rarely used in isolation, and superior leaders can deftly use different combinations in varying degrees for any situation. However most leaders find greater comfort in one or two styles that suit their personality and then lean on them to a large degree, if not entirely. Dexterity in such soft skills doesn’t come easily and it’s a rare individual that naturally comes by it. Leaders are often put in place due to their technical expertise, history of success in non-leadership positions, or leadership success in narrowly defined, situational experiences – and many fail because they don’t have, or don’t learn, proper leadership skills.
In Stéphane Dion and Stephen Harper, we have two individuals with little leadership experience and personalities that, from what we’ve seen so far, are not well-suited to the emotional dexterity required to utilize the various leadership styles effectively. This doesn’t mean they can’t learn them and become more effective leaders, but it does mean if they continue on the same paths they’ve been on, neither can expect any tangible changes in their prospects of increased success.
Politics is a fierce, difficult, and complicated arena to lead in, which is why so few political leaders stand out to a large degree. There are many external and technical factors that can impact their level of success, but the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” can be muted if a leader can first solidify support in their own party, and second, garner respect, empathy, and trust from the public. As much as people want perfect results, there is a level of forgiveness for setbacks and errors in judgment provided they’re the exception and not the rule and came about honestly. The key to gaining that support both internally and externally relies heavily on the proper application of the leadership styles.
Stephen Harper has leaned heavily on the worst of the leadership styles, the coercive/directive method. He is the boss no one wants to work for, which is most likely why he can’t get a majority of Canadians to get behind him. Given the limited prospects of the Canadian Alliance and the botched electioneering of his Party in the 2004 election, a coercive style made sense at first as he reigned in his party and moved them to the centre. His assumption of nearly all communication duties was a pacesetting approach, except without coaching there’s been no productive gain, especially given his own technical limitations (i.e. lack of charm) and his acerbic relationship with the Canadian media. He’s been better with the authoritative/visionary aspects but they will wear off as more people, inside and outside his party, lose respect for his leadership. The one area he’s truly excelled is in the tactical, political manoeuvring; which shows he’s technically adept, but this has nothing to do with leadership unless he’s coaching others, and I haven’t seen any signs in that direction.
Harper’s handling of his party reminds me of the Harvard experiment in the 1960s that the Hay Group uses in its leadership training. Three virtual companies were created to manufacture something for the government (I can’t recall what it was, I think it was related to the Space Industry, which is not surprising since it was the 60s). The three companies were run under different leadership styles (volunteer students were the employees):
Blazer – was a top performing, flexible, creative, and committed environment under a visionary, democratic, and coaching environment. It excelled as the top performer of the three as it was creative and productive.
Balance – was a people centred, co-operative effort where loyalty and openness was stressed. The affiliative, democratic approach made for a good time and had happy employees, but was ineffective and lagged considerably behind Blazer.
Booker – was a tightly controlled, stifling, micro-managed environment. The directive, pacesetting environment did produce some results – they had no choice – but still lagged Blazer and Balance. Most tellingly, the students/employees actually revolted (it was the 60s after all) and led to the early termination of the Booker team within the experiment.
The Conservative Party of Canada reminds me of Booker, especially when they run out of ideas and there are suggestions that the civil service is grinding to a halt under their leadership. As ministers (Ambrose, O’Connor, Lunn) are repeatedly left out to dry when things don’t go well, and Harper continues to lecture Canada on everyone else’s failings while ignoring his own, a revolt seems like an inevitable conclusion – from his party, voters, or both – more than an increase in the polls. As the economy suffers over the next while, Harper has not built a foundation of trust with his party or the public to withstand the inevitable knocks his party is going to incur.
It’s been hard to identify what styles Stéphane Dion has used. Perhaps he’s tried them but only at the wrong times? I’ve heard he doesn’t listen well and goes with his own decisions despite alternative counsel, which suggests a coercive style; but I’ve also heard he picks up on things well and shows responsiveness and learning, which suggests a democratic approach. His public showing though has suggested a lack of affiliation as the divisions in the party aren’t being healed, an inability for pacesetting or coaching as he lacks technical credibility, and most glaringly a lack of authoritative/visionary style as the party has not coalesced under a clearly defined direction. His “three pillars” showed potential but until the anti-poverty strategy, there’s been little sign of how the pillars would direct the party.
Until Harper shows a little affiliation and democracy with his Party, he’s not going to show Canadians that he can effectively lead. He did something right when he unified the right under the new Conservative Party, so it’s possible he has it in him. Dion has to show leadership skills by uniting his party (affiliation, democracy) and pointing them in a cohesive direction (visionary), while also showing greater technical skills in terms of communication (and I’m not talking language skills) and political savvy. Canadians aren’t going to rally behind him otherwise. He’s well-liked on a personal level, so he too has a foundation to build on.
A final note is that good leadership, outside of the deployment of leadership skills, harnesses the power of its enterprise and produces an output – an entity – that is greater than the sum of its parts and is sustainable through leadership transitions. Many political parties experience deficiencies in this area and Canada has seen them in particular over the past few decades. Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chrétien on the national stage and Harris (and possibly Klein) on the Provincial have shown that despite their personal skills and successes their leadership left their parties impoverished and limping after they retired. It’s possibly one of the hardest things to do in politics, as we’ve seen.
Minority governments are likely to continue until a leader comes along that strengthens their party and rallies Canadians behind a personality and skill set that makes them want to follow. No amount of policy, strategic priorities, or partisan game playing will get them to a majority as fast as good leadership and the effective application of the leadership styles.
In Canada, we have very different individuals that are giving us different choices of leadership. Stephen Harper is pursuing a majority on the premise that he is “a leader” while Stéphane Dion “is not.” Yet, after almost two years in power, I find it interesting that articles are being written about why Harper isn’t making ground, or is even slipping, in polling. So, even if Harper is right that Dion hasn’t been a good leader since his December 2006 victory in Montreal, he’s conveniently ignoring the fact that his own performance has been equally lacking. What both are struggling with, and so many others do in private and public endeavours, is finding the right leadership style that fits with their situation.
In retrospect, I find it distressing that during the Liberal Leadership race in 2006 so few candidates expressed how they were going to lead the party. There was policy, high-level ideas, speeches on the value of experience, but little talk about how they would lead the party. Rae talked about his qualifications for leadership and Kennedy talked about the need to unite the party and move it forward, but there wasn’t any prominent talk about how. For all intents and purposes this was a job interview to take over a struggling, declining company, and no candidates had a clear plan on how they were going to repair the party and restore it to success. In the end a compromise candidate was selected by a small representation of party members based on an agreement struck between two trailing candidates and the unwillingness of the leading candidates to build bridges. If ever there was a set-up for failure, this was it. But it didn’t have to be that way – with the right leadership style Dion could have succeeded, and still can, but he’s got to change the course he’s on because it’s not going anywhere inside or outside of the Liberal Party.
There are different opinions and teachings on leadership styles. One commonality among them is that there are multiple styles and that no single style can succeed in every situation. Like a set of golf clubs, you have to pull the right club out of the bag for the right situation. We’re not talking about duplicity, deceit, or a lack of conviction, we’re talking about skill – an ability to utilize a set of tools for effective leadership.
I have been taught and prefer Daniel Goleman’s six styles of leadership, which need to be reviewed in order to show what political leadership requires and why Harper and Dion are struggling.
Authoritative/Visionary – gives inspiration, motivation, direction, and meaning to the efforts of a company or organization. This style usually has strong beneficial impacts and is best used when undergoing organizational or strategic change or when clear direction is needed. This leader gives the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what.’ It’s versatile and can be used in broad or small settings, but can be negative if over-used or actions don’t back up the words. It’s not appropriate for self-managed teams or participatory decision-making, or when the leader is not seen as credible. When used appropriately, this is a leader that says “follow me” and people do.
Coaching – shares expertise and knowledge by working with others through counselling, encouraging and delegation. Helps develop talent and improve others and can be used to motivate or improve performance in specific individuals or teams. This style is best used in intimate or closed settings that focus on the person and can backfire as condescending, elitist, or arrogant if used in inappropriate or broad areas. It’s also not good, obviously, if the leader lacks the technical expertise.
Affiliative – this is a personal, interactive style that promotes harmony and friendship. It’s good when morale or conflict resolution is needed and requires empathy. It’s less focused on task direction, goals, and standards than on the emotional needs of the team or individual. It’s beneficial in moderate, short-term doses and should not be a dominant style. Overuse will blur the line between a leader and his/her team and is not effective when team or individual performance is an issue. This is an “all carrot and no stick” approach.
Democratic/Participative – this promotes teamwork, involvement, consensus and collaboration. It can be messy, slow, and cause pain if not handled deftly, so its benefits are realized only through smart and able application. It’s a long term approach used to build commitment, generate ideas, and requires competent and informed individuals on the team. Most people will appreciate a democratic approach, but it can undermine authority and decisiveness if over-used (which is often).
Pacesetting – leading by example, it requires strong credentials that demand respect and an effectiveness that people will admire and want to emulate, or can be motivated by. It is task-focused, short-term, and good for coaching highly motivated and competent individuals. This is the “rolling up his/her sleeves” leader that jumps in and helps get the job done or shows how it is done. Benefits are usually short term but can have immediate impact, whereas overuse or poor application can severely undermine the respect for a leader. It’s also not appropriate if the leader cannot do his/her own work as a result or when their reports need direction, development, and co-ordination.
Coercive/Directive – probably the most overused and most detrimental, this is the “do as I say” style. It’s threatening, intimidating, and demoralizing if used more than the rarest of occasions. It’s good when decisive, quick action is needed such as a crisis or dramatic shake-up, but turns negative very quickly if people sense it’s an immediate fall-back or worse, the first one used in most situations. This is an “all stick and no carrot” approach.
These styles are rarely used in isolation, and superior leaders can deftly use different combinations in varying degrees for any situation. However most leaders find greater comfort in one or two styles that suit their personality and then lean on them to a large degree, if not entirely. Dexterity in such soft skills doesn’t come easily and it’s a rare individual that naturally comes by it. Leaders are often put in place due to their technical expertise, history of success in non-leadership positions, or leadership success in narrowly defined, situational experiences – and many fail because they don’t have, or don’t learn, proper leadership skills.
In Stéphane Dion and Stephen Harper, we have two individuals with little leadership experience and personalities that, from what we’ve seen so far, are not well-suited to the emotional dexterity required to utilize the various leadership styles effectively. This doesn’t mean they can’t learn them and become more effective leaders, but it does mean if they continue on the same paths they’ve been on, neither can expect any tangible changes in their prospects of increased success.
Politics is a fierce, difficult, and complicated arena to lead in, which is why so few political leaders stand out to a large degree. There are many external and technical factors that can impact their level of success, but the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” can be muted if a leader can first solidify support in their own party, and second, garner respect, empathy, and trust from the public. As much as people want perfect results, there is a level of forgiveness for setbacks and errors in judgment provided they’re the exception and not the rule and came about honestly. The key to gaining that support both internally and externally relies heavily on the proper application of the leadership styles.
Stephen Harper has leaned heavily on the worst of the leadership styles, the coercive/directive method. He is the boss no one wants to work for, which is most likely why he can’t get a majority of Canadians to get behind him. Given the limited prospects of the Canadian Alliance and the botched electioneering of his Party in the 2004 election, a coercive style made sense at first as he reigned in his party and moved them to the centre. His assumption of nearly all communication duties was a pacesetting approach, except without coaching there’s been no productive gain, especially given his own technical limitations (i.e. lack of charm) and his acerbic relationship with the Canadian media. He’s been better with the authoritative/visionary aspects but they will wear off as more people, inside and outside his party, lose respect for his leadership. The one area he’s truly excelled is in the tactical, political manoeuvring; which shows he’s technically adept, but this has nothing to do with leadership unless he’s coaching others, and I haven’t seen any signs in that direction.
Harper’s handling of his party reminds me of the Harvard experiment in the 1960s that the Hay Group uses in its leadership training. Three virtual companies were created to manufacture something for the government (I can’t recall what it was, I think it was related to the Space Industry, which is not surprising since it was the 60s). The three companies were run under different leadership styles (volunteer students were the employees):
Blazer – was a top performing, flexible, creative, and committed environment under a visionary, democratic, and coaching environment. It excelled as the top performer of the three as it was creative and productive.
Balance – was a people centred, co-operative effort where loyalty and openness was stressed. The affiliative, democratic approach made for a good time and had happy employees, but was ineffective and lagged considerably behind Blazer.
Booker – was a tightly controlled, stifling, micro-managed environment. The directive, pacesetting environment did produce some results – they had no choice – but still lagged Blazer and Balance. Most tellingly, the students/employees actually revolted (it was the 60s after all) and led to the early termination of the Booker team within the experiment.
The Conservative Party of Canada reminds me of Booker, especially when they run out of ideas and there are suggestions that the civil service is grinding to a halt under their leadership. As ministers (Ambrose, O’Connor, Lunn) are repeatedly left out to dry when things don’t go well, and Harper continues to lecture Canada on everyone else’s failings while ignoring his own, a revolt seems like an inevitable conclusion – from his party, voters, or both – more than an increase in the polls. As the economy suffers over the next while, Harper has not built a foundation of trust with his party or the public to withstand the inevitable knocks his party is going to incur.
It’s been hard to identify what styles Stéphane Dion has used. Perhaps he’s tried them but only at the wrong times? I’ve heard he doesn’t listen well and goes with his own decisions despite alternative counsel, which suggests a coercive style; but I’ve also heard he picks up on things well and shows responsiveness and learning, which suggests a democratic approach. His public showing though has suggested a lack of affiliation as the divisions in the party aren’t being healed, an inability for pacesetting or coaching as he lacks technical credibility, and most glaringly a lack of authoritative/visionary style as the party has not coalesced under a clearly defined direction. His “three pillars” showed potential but until the anti-poverty strategy, there’s been little sign of how the pillars would direct the party.
Until Harper shows a little affiliation and democracy with his Party, he’s not going to show Canadians that he can effectively lead. He did something right when he unified the right under the new Conservative Party, so it’s possible he has it in him. Dion has to show leadership skills by uniting his party (affiliation, democracy) and pointing them in a cohesive direction (visionary), while also showing greater technical skills in terms of communication (and I’m not talking language skills) and political savvy. Canadians aren’t going to rally behind him otherwise. He’s well-liked on a personal level, so he too has a foundation to build on.
A final note is that good leadership, outside of the deployment of leadership skills, harnesses the power of its enterprise and produces an output – an entity – that is greater than the sum of its parts and is sustainable through leadership transitions. Many political parties experience deficiencies in this area and Canada has seen them in particular over the past few decades. Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chrétien on the national stage and Harris (and possibly Klein) on the Provincial have shown that despite their personal skills and successes their leadership left their parties impoverished and limping after they retired. It’s possibly one of the hardest things to do in politics, as we’ve seen.
Minority governments are likely to continue until a leader comes along that strengthens their party and rallies Canadians behind a personality and skill set that makes them want to follow. No amount of policy, strategic priorities, or partisan game playing will get them to a majority as fast as good leadership and the effective application of the leadership styles.
3 comments:
Prime Minister Harper reminds me of the captain of a road hockey team who tells his players to pass the ball to him yet he never passes it to anyone else.
The prime minister has Conservative MPs who are able to think for themselves and in the interests of the party. Unfortunately, their talents are never utilized except for belonging to the Borg Collective. Essentially, his cabinet ministers and MPs are just props.
Harper wants to reform the Senate. It is an interesting idea except he has no credibility in ensuring the the Senate become democratic in terms of Senators being elected and participating in meaningful democratic discourse. Why expand the Borg Collective?
You didn't mention the "being a puppet of corporate, non-profit technocrat, or policy consultant elites" style of leadership, which appears to me to be the dominant style in Canada today.
Roy Harrold
I like pacesetting the most, because I have proven that adults learn and follow what they see, more than what they hear.
You might want to know about the Young Entrepreneur Society from the www.YoungEntrepreneurSociety.com. Many leadership related info in the site.
Post a Comment