Leadership: Leadership Is Context

Leadership styles vary most predictably along personal work styles. Some people expand to fill gaps they see in the groups they're a part of. To that extent, their leadership styles vary widely based on what the group needs and often has little to do with what the group think it needs or whether or not it already has a declared leader. These kinds of people are super valuable because they solve problems you didn't know you had, and if they're really good, they can articulate what they're doing and change the group's dynamic so the gap grows away. Other leaders have a specific set of skills or talents that provide specific leadership that solves specific problems really well. Lots of CEOs work at this level and will be recruited to fill known gaps. Again, if they're really good, they can articulate what their solutions to the group so that gap grows away. Another kind of leader is good at identifying gaps and identifying the people who can fill them. I don't think it's as much about the cart, the horse, or who's driving, but more about whether you need a cart, a horse, or a driver. Or if you even know. If you really had to choose what kind of leader you'd want, I think the last kind would be the most valuable. They can identify problems and find people from the second group to fix them. Barring access to the third kind, I'd vote for the first kind every time. Put them in, let them work their magic, and then you'll be able to sort out more prominent leadership later. Good leaders lead by example: making easy decisions, making hard decisions, and sharing their knowledge, wisdom, and experience about why. At that level everyone is a leader and everyone should lead. If a group is lacking good leadership, maybe the group is really lacking a good group.

I agree that successful leaders can shape their leadership styles to meet a variety of situational needs, long term needs, and individual needs. One example is the body of research about transformational leadership - the leader is a visionary and others will follow. The transactional leader is something else entirely.

"One can't remove leaders from the context of their worlds and expect to measure their leadership style and effectiveness in any way. It's all about the context of their world, their surroundings, people, challenges, stability and sustainability of the organization." I've heard that before, typically in the proceedings of civil and criminal trials where the fallen leader is saying something of the sort "But everybody is doing it.". Ethicality and morality are common characteristics of good leaders. That is not to say you can't be a leader without those characteristics; look at this Administration. Who, when viewed in the context of their supporters and campaign contributors...

Donna, I think talking about leadership style is a distraction. What we want from leaders is an ability to see a bigger picture than us and an ability to make meaning for us, personally. If you can do that for me, I will see you as a leader -style and personality flavor the interaction but are really secondary. And yes, there are people with extreme temperament issues who may or may not be helped with therapy, coaching and soft skills training, but that's not what's at the heart of leadership CAPABILITY. One man's leader can be another's fool. It's all relative - my problem-solving capability level relative to theirs. If theirs is higher, they will be a thought leader for me. Whether I agree with their views is another matter. Everyone can be a leader, but not everyone will be their follower. http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/looking-for-leaders-no-personalit... Regards, Michelle Malay Carter

The problem is most people equate leaders with managers and believe the terms to be interchangeable. Bzzzzzzzzz. Wrong. Thank you for playing. A manager would prefer to be called a leader because it makes them sound bigger than they are. The leader is not always the person who sits at a certain level in the org chart. It is the individual who, to use a military metaphor, you jump out of the foxhole to follow up the hill as the bullets are flying at you. Leadership belongs to the person who can view their company in its totality, recognize immediately the effect of any decision on the entire company (and not just their little fiefdoms), and has the social skills to rally people to move in one direction.

If you want to measure a leadership style don't you first have to define what you want to measure? There are so many facets to good leadership, perhaps you should start by narrowing your field to a small handful and then look for leaders that have demonstrated those attributes in multiple settings. At that point you can measure what you need and look for other commonalities.

I don't think context is that important. Regardless of the context there are certain fundamental characteristics that a good leader has to have; superior listening skills, superior observational skills, strong, positive ethics, true humility, empathy, focus on the far reaching goal, strong problem identification skills as well as problem solving skills, ability to impart a sense of motivation and desire to succeed to others- to name a few. I think these are all necessary for the true leader if he or she is to achieve long term, sustainable success; personally or corporately. The position on a team, squad, business etc. is also not important in terms of who the leader really is. If the true leaders were actually the ones on the executive team then most, if not all companies, would be outstanding success stories and that it is certainly not the case as we all know. Check out Jim Collins’ book “Good to Great,” particularly what they uncovered in terms of leadership in the great companies.

Austin....beautifully articulated! Leaders come in many styles, all valuable, powerful and applicable in their own way. The power of context is what determines what's needed at the time....and a great leader pays attention and morphs into what's needed Many thanks!

Cathy, situational leaders....leaders within context of their realms need to meet the needs of what unfolds. As well, as you said there is a difference between transformational and transactional. One is immediate and the other is forward thinking and innovative. I find it fascinating how we can take parts of leadership styles and analyze them according to many factors. Thank you!

Michelle you have a great point. However one thing I'm not sure I agree with and that is when you say "Everyone can be a leader". I have observer many who can't and won't make a decision if their lives depended on it. They won't lead, they won't rock the boat and they want to do their job and not have to have a say in any of the decision making process. Even some managers are like that unfortunately and lose some great people along the way. Capability is key yes....integrate that with the context of their worlds and see if they mesh. That's also key Many thanks!

Paul Bingo! As you said managers and leaders are very different. One dictates and the other inspires. I know that's simplistic but applicable all the same don't you think? Best!

Langford, I know the book Good to Great. It's excellent. I agree with everything you said. Where context comes in is to create that container so to speak where all the other attributes you mentioned are measured against. Without context there's no world, no organization or people, so no way to measure the skills of the leader. Context as in environment, organization, people, industry...all of it. Beautifully put! Thank you

John, Absolutely you have to define what should be measured. That's where context comes in. Every organization has different needs when it comes to leadership. I believe one has to define what they look for, in the context of their worlds in order to match the right leader with the organizaton. There are many ways to measure. That's why not all organizational leaders succeed because they're not chosen for the right reasoned or measured against the right criteria. Thank you for pointing that out!

Jumping in here kind of late but I'll add that a masterful leader is one who has vision and is able to coordinate/influence others to step into and fulfill the mission... regardless of the context. In others words a masterful leader can adapt to change... as it happens! Not after as it will likely be too late. Such a leader must have an excellent sense of what is occurring within the org., but not be a micromanger in order to delegate and develop other leaders. I'm afraid there's not a huge abundance of those types of leaders out there. These leaders are like the chameleon. They adapt quickly to the context but not at the expense of their identity or core values. Paul S Markle

Paul you know whenever you jump in is a perfect time. You're right when you say there aren't a huge abundance of that type of leader out there. It's amazing. Many can articulate to a T what they want from a leader and for their leadership but rarely choose that person for the position. Why is that do you think? Interesing phenomenon hmm?