Redefining Leadership

What kind of leader are you — autocratic, charismatic, transformational?

Leadership became a field of study about 60 years ago, but has become almost an obsession over the last two decades.

The descriptions of leadership seem to fall into a few categories, with varying degrees of judgment.

There is what some call the “autocratic” leader, the “strong man” or the authoritarian leader, one of the earliest definitions of a successful leader. Martha Stewart is an example, with meticulous attention to detail and incredibly high demand on employees.

More recently, people have begun to revere what we now call the “visionary hero” as well as the “transformational” or “charismatic” leader, who are effective because of their vision and their ability to bring out the best in their team members. The tech industry has bred many of these leaders — like Mark Zuckerberg and the late Steve Jobs — who inspire their “followers” with groundbreaking ideas.

In 1991, professors and management consultants Charles Manz and Henry Sims developed the idea of “SuperLeadership,” based on the idea of leading others to lead themselves.

Each of these archetypes represents important qualities that leaders must embody in order to build effective teams. However, those who model themselves after just one of these archetypes end up losing access to a wide array of important qualities, and narrowing their perspective.

In the short-term, a more authoritarian leader can build a productive and effective team by defining a clear vision and strategy and communicating how their employees need to deliver on that vision. However, without giving people the freedom to connect their work to what matters to them, to get their work done the way they want to, and to have space to make their work their own, this leader is likely to breed feelings of resentment and disempowerment in the team, which are unsustainable over time. If the authoritarian leader could balance her clear vision with some of the qualities of the transformational leader, such as promoting cooperation and inspiring intrinsic motivation, and the SuperLeader, who leads people to lead themselves, then she would have a team with a stable foundation and a clear direction, in addition to the passion and motivation to bring all of themselves to the work they are doing.

Steve Jobs was a visionary and transformational leader, whose innovation and idealism motivated his employees and challenged them to step out of their comfort zone and push boundaries. However, he also tended to throw tantrums as well as berate and humiliate employees who disagreed with him.

Grappling with each of these leader archetypes is key to being able to step out of the boxes in which each of them live. Truly successful leaders don’t choose between managing or encouraging or inspiring or teaching. They understand that sometimes people need care, sometimes they need challenge, sometimes they need wisdom, and sometimes they need inspiration. Leaders need to have a vision, they need to model that vision, communicate that vision, and work with their team members to make sure they understand and can execute on that vision.

We need a new, broader definition of leadership, just as we need a bigger definition of human beings in general.

Photo credit: Patrick Schöpflin