Contemporary Leadership Styles: How relevant are they in today’s changing world?
In around 535–475 BC Heraclitus who was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher said, “the only thing that is constant is change”. The world is ever changing, the only variable is the rate of change and it’s now accelerating. In this blog post I will cover three of my favourite contemporary leadership theories as they evolved describing how every new model challenged their predecessors. Further I will be assessing challenges of adopting these leadership styles in real life with examples of concerns current leaders are facing. I will be concluding this post by providing my vision on how leadership theories will evolve in the future.
Situational Leadership
This theory states that the leaders are effective dependent on the situation that they are in or on the tasks to be done (Mullins 2016). In other words, one can be a brilliant leader in some situations and may not be effective in a different context or a different organisation or a different project. Indeed, a leadership is something that is bigger than just trying to fit into one box.
Hersey and Blanchard structured this theory via a chart with tasks on one axe and the relationship side on the other one (1997). It is a leader-member relations theory with a task and human aspects in its core that sets for various relations scenarios including delegating, participating, selling and telling.
The setback here is that the theory does not help with what should be done in a real-world setting where there is a mismatch between a leader and the situation the organisation find itself in. Not every leader is flexible to adopt to new circumstances. Also, as it was said earlier some leaders who have particular leadership style are more effective in some situations than others, hence when it’s not that favourable situation the leadership must change to stay effective.
One of the real differences that good leaders’ question rather than trying to answer the questions themselves (HBR 2018). There is an exceptional form of influence that move followers to accomplish more than what would usually be expected.
Transformational Leadership
A transformational leadership is a process that aims to change and transform individuals and organisations. The core elements of transformational leadership be therefore concerned with emotions values ethics standards and long-term goals, the bigger picture (Researchgate 2011). A transformational leadership is an all-encompassing approach it describes a wide range of leadership influence where followers and leaders are bound together in a psychological contract and a transformational process.
These leaders are the social architect of the organisation that when you are in a leadership position you are an architect of the organisation.
As for the downsides of this leadership theory, it treats leadership more as a personality trait or a predisposition rather than their behaviours that can be taught and there is really no causal link between transformational leaders and the changes that supposed to be happening to followers or to organisation. A transformational leadership can be elitist and anti-democratic, and it suffers from the heroic leadership bias. Is it just trade theory put in a different wrapping?
The challenges for an adopting this theory by a leader will be inability to measure, because some transformational factors are not unique just to that transformational model. Big concern with it, it is the potential it has to be abused, just in a case of Amazon.com or Uber Technologies Inc. described in my other blog.
Authentic leadership
A leadership style I find the closest to me is an authentic leadership which focuses on whether leadership is genuine. The person you are as a leader is coming from a life that has integrity, that your character is in synchronisation with the way that you lead and the way that you deal with other people (Economist 2020). I am personally really interested in whether a leader is real, all I am interested is not what one knows, but to see through one’s actions. Hence, this idea of authentic leadership gained prominence because people were longing for trustworthy leaders (Forbes 2020). There are a number of things that happened over recent decades from the collapse of the banking crisis in 2008, to the scandal over British MP’s expenses and this whole issue of fake news. People as never before want to know that you are authentic and trustworthy.
My criticism of authentic leadership theory is that in this world of moral relativism where absolute moral values of sudden gone by the wayside who decides what’s mora? So the moral component of authentic leadership isn’t fully explained. Is is not clear whether authentic leadership is sufficient to achieve organisational goals. At this stage the theory is around ones philosophy, foundational part of the leadership, but then informs other parts of ones leadership to draw on the other leadership concepts.
To sum this up, the leadership evolves along with the world we live in. As said earlier, the pace of changes is higher than ever. While 3 months used to be considered a short term now is a long-term phenomenon. It’s a time when we see who could adopt situational leadership to adapt and survive literally and who couldn’t cope and fell (Bloomberg 2020). It’s a time of transformations if it previously was distinctive strategy for someone, it has to be a layer of any leader’s strategy. At the times when many organisations fall apart giving a sense of ownership is vital more than ever and will be also a part of any successful leader’s strategy.
What will also matter is whether a leader has the right vivid vision and be able to convey it to gain the following. Be able to adapt and utilise the technology to grab the attention of the audience and communicate own vision. Another layer which is highly valued is the authentic leadership which has to be in place as a strong foundational part.
