Leadership Theories and 9/12 Practices: Charisma, Behaviors, Styles, and Biases
Charismatic leadership and the awestruck effect
Charismatic leaders can overwhelm followers emotionally, leading to reduced critical thinking
Aware audiences should step back and think critically about what is being said, rather than being swept up by emotion
Emotional arousal (amygdala activation) can cloud judgment; maintain mindful processing when confronted with charismatic figures
Chapter 4: Leadership behaviors, attitudes, and styles
Focus on how leaders act: behaviors, attitudes, styles
Central question: when balancing tasks and people, which matters more? Is the person or the task more important?
Example discussion (scenario with Dimitri): balancing the well-being of the person versus meeting deadlines and business needs
If the task is deemed more important, actions might prioritize the deadline over personal life (e.g., sister’s birthday)
Short-term impact: happier employee now vs potential loss of business from missed deadlines
Long-term impact: loyalty and willingness to sacrifice for the company when leadership shows flexibility and support for personal needs
Conclusion from discussion: both the person and the task are important; a balance is needed
Consideration vs Initiating Structure (two primary behavioral dynamics)
Consideration = emotional support, warmth, friendliness, trust; environment that supports people
Initiating structure = defining tasks, relationships, procedures, expectations; ensuring clarity on responsibilities
Effective leadership requires both: trust-building and accountability
Consequences of imbalanced focus:
High task focus with low consideration: people feel replaceable; productivity may exist, but morale and long-term profitability suffer
High consideration with low structure: strong culture but unclear accountability and direction; potential underperformance
Blake and Mouton managerial grid (two axes and resulting leadership styles)
Axes:
Vertical axis: concern for people
Horizontal axis: concern for results
Quadrants/labels (as presented in lecture; note some labels vary by source):
Impoverished management: low concern for both people and results
Country Club leadership: high concern for people, low concern for results
Produce/Task-focused leadership: low concern for people, high concern for results
Middle-of-the-road management: moderate concern for both
Team Management (great managers): high concern for both, aiming for high performance and strong culture
Message: the best leaders balance both concerns, then adapt to context (e.g., short-term pressure vs. long-term development)
Caution on labels: speaker referred to terms like “country club leadership” and mixed labels; standard model emphasizes Team Management as the ideal balance
The “great managers” approach: dialing up both concerns as needed
In response to stress or hard periods, increase focus on results while still protecting and supporting people
The risk of overemphasizing one dimension (e.g., relying on a harsh, results-only approach) can lead to churn and reduced long-term performance
Task-related vs people-related behaviors (in practice)
Task-related behaviors (initiating structure):
Adaptability to the situation
Direction setting: where are we going and how will we get there?
High performance standards
Concentrating on strengths and risk taking
Plan execution
Hands-on guidance
Asking tough questions to diagnose issues (e.g., “Four of the five metrics we didn’t hit, why?”)
Organizing for collaboration and aligning people with the job
People-related behaviors (consideration):
Relationship-building and alignment with people’s skills and preferences
Open to opinions and feedback
Creating inspiration, visibility, and motivation
Satisfying higher-level needs; providing emotional support and encouragement
Promoting principles and values; upholding team norms (no gossip, ethical behavior)
Gossip in the workplace and how to address it
Definition used in class: talking about a problem or situation involving someone with no authority to fix it
Policy: no gossip; one warning (first strike) and a second strike leads to termination
Practical example: addressing gossip in real-time to prevent a cancer-like culture
Conversation approach: address the issue immediately, be respectful, focus on behavior and impact, not emotions
Emphasis on accountability and early intervention to protect team culture
Handling difficult feedback and accountability
Delivering tough messages with care and firmness
It’s possible to be both kind and firm when holding someone accountable
The weight of the message should be acknowledged, but emotions should be managed to focus on the impact of actions
Leadership styles: participative vs autocratic
Participative leadership encompasses input from others; three forms:
Consultative: leader gathers input but makes the final decision
Democratic: majority rule decides
Consensus: everyone must agree, which can take a long time
When to use each:
Consultative: good for hiring decisions or when input from a group is valuable but a single leader must make the final call
Democratic: appropriate when the decision will benefit from broad input and broad buy-in; may be slow
Consensus: best when high levels of commitment and unified support are essential; can be impractical in urgent situations
Urgency and importance guide choice of decision-making style
Common pitfall: in participative settings, people may defer to the leader and not voice dissent, leading to poor buy-in; the leader must actively solicit and value input
Autocratic leadership
Retains authority and is primarily task-oriented; fast decisions, clear directions
Often necessary in emergency or high-stakes contexts (e.g., on-scene crisis management)
Downsides: can reduce buy-in, creativity, and morale; may be unsuitable for long-term organizational learning
Servant leadership
Deeply oriented toward serving others; ethical behavior and constructive relationships guide influence
Famous examples: Jesus, Mother Teresa, Gandhi
Emphasizes meeting needs of others and enabling growth rather than pursuing personal power
Gender and leadership: biases, norms, and double standards
Sensitive topic: discussion aims to explore ideas, not individuals
Common biases:
Direct, assertive women may be labeled as bossy; men seen as decisive and strong for similar behavior
Nurturing, collaborative women may be seen as weak; same traits in men may be viewed positively
Confidence and assertiveness of women may be interpreted as aggression or incompetence; men’s assertiveness is often linked to competence
Examples and implications discussed:
In boardrooms, women’s ideas may be discounted or delayed; men’s ideas are considered more readily
Mansplaining: assumption that women need explanations for topics they already understand; a gender bias in communication and leadership dynamics
Appearance and professionalism: judgments about attire and presentation can overshadow substantive contributions
Networking gaps: access to male-dominated networks (e.g., exclusive golf networks) can impede women’s advancement
Advocacy and visibility: speaking out can be seen as divisive; women may feel the need to overperform without token recognition
Tokenism: presence of women on boards without meaningful influence; pay gaps persist (example given: 30% of the board being female does not guarantee equitable influence or pay)
Practical takeaway: awareness of bias is essential; men can support women’s leadership by ensuring inclusive participation, giving space for women to lead, and valuing diverse perspectives
Real-world reflection and closing notes
The lecture ties leadership theory to real-world behavior, including examples from business culture (e.g., Tesla’s high-pressure environment) and public policy considerations
Reminder of assessment: quiz due Sunday
Encouragement to reflect on how these styles and biases influence your own leadership approach and how you might apply servant, participative, or autocratic styles appropriately depending on context
Key terms and concepts to remember:
Charismatic leadership and the awestruck effect: emotional influence vs critical thinking
Consideration vs Initiating Structure: people-oriented vs task-oriented leadership behaviors
Blake and Mouton managerial grid: axes of concern for people vs concern for results; quadrants and the ideal Team Management position
Task-related vs People-related behaviors: driving results vs building relationships and alignment
Gossip policy: no gossip; 1st and 2nd strikes policy to protect culture
Participative leadership styles: Consultative, Democratic, Consensus; when to use each
Autocratic leadership: fast, decisive, task-focused; appropriate in emergencies but risky for ongoing culture
Servant leadership: ethical focus and service to meet needs
Gender and leadership biases: double standards, mansplaining, appearance, networking gaps, tokenism, pay gap (e.g., board composition, $30\%$ guidance)
Real-world examples: leadership in tech, public policy, and media commentary (e.g., arguments around gendered perceptions in leadership)
Study tip: balance consideration and structure; cultivate a culture where input is heard, buy-in is sought, and accountability is clear
Formulas and numbers referenced:
Board composition example: of the board is female
Mentions of quantitative aspects in leadership scenarios: of the metrics were not hit in a quarterly review
Quick reference for timeframe mentioned: months as a period for evaluating process changes or performance adjustments
Count examples in decision-making styles: strike (initial warning) and strikes (termination) policy for gossip
To recall: the two primary behavioral dynamics are Initiating Structure and Consideration; no numerical formula required