Leader Behaviors

Early theories of leadership focused on a leader's traits. However, research has been unable to identify a consistent trait or set of traits present among all leaders. This led to investigations of leader behaviors as a predictor of success. Leader behaviors were thought to fall into two general categories: Task-oriented (emphasis on tasks and accomplishing objectives: "clarifying, planning, monitoring operations, and problem solving"¹); and Relationship-oriented (emphasis on relationships: "supporting, developing, recognizing and empowering"¹). Yukl¹ identifies two additional behavioral models: (1) Change-oriented and (2) External-oriented (not discussed in this publication).

Research has confirmed that leaders straddle task and relationship behaviors simultaneously and exhibit either high or low characteristics on each. For example, the high-task and high-relationship leader can exhibit behaviors in keeping with good relationships while also maintaining a strong task focus. Some leaders are able to do both well, but many tend to favor one orientation.

Researchers then investigated the behavior (Task or Relationship) that worked best with different followers and in what situations, thus, contingency models of leadership were born. These directive models offered guidance about when a leader should put forth what style as a means to support the attainment of business goals.

Eventually, Transformational Leadership (integrated with charismatic leadership) became the focus and is now the preeminent style. It has been confirmed by hundreds of studies as effective across a broad range of followers and situations. Transformational Leadership (a close cousin of the relationship perspective) is best combined with Transactional Leadership (a relative of the task approach); both were discussed in previous publications. The combination has been labeled "full-range leadership."

We also know that strong leaders are flexible, adaptive, and able to maneuver in complex situations and shift their style (between Transformational and Transactional) to match the presenting followers, situation or project (e.g. unstructured).

It is very difficult for leaders to make rapid behavioral shifts. Most leaders determine what works for them and maintain that set of behaviors across all situations and workers. While there are known behaviors that help a leader be a success (e.g. positive regard for others, genuineness, ability to communicate important messages like the business’ mission, etc.), this is not enough to optimize performance.  Performance bumps come from calibrating behavior to the specific person and situation; "best" is defined as what optimizes the outcomes.

Of course, what is paramount to stakeholders of organizations (e.g. owners) is the achievement of business goals because it typically increases stock price or business value.  This suggests a tension between the needs of the organization (profit) and what is called for in effective leadership (behaviors that drive outcomes through the hard work of followers). Therefore, from the stakeholder view, a leader is labeled “effective” when outcomes have reached satisfactory and perhaps superior levels; that is, growth and profits measure up.

A recent article about Charlie Ergen, Chairman of Dish Network, demonstrates the tension. As you can read from the examples excerpted from the Bloomberg Business article (directly quoted excerpts are below), he defies the rules of leadership that years of study have confirmed; he should have failed as a leader. Instead, from a stakeholder perspective, he has been a success. Fascinating!

Yes, he brought superior results, but at what costs? Could the results have been better or improved with a different behavioral approach? Should his behaviors be allowed given that the results are exactly what they want (Ergen is a primary owner)? He clearly exhibits Task-oriented Leadership mixed in with an autocratic approach. Is this the best style? Would you want to work for Charlie Ergen? How close is your leadership style to his?

Sometimes extensive behavioral freedom is given to leaders because of the business results he or she has generated. Is this so bad? Perhaps not if business goals are the only concern. However, I argue that outcomes can be improved by following the basic patterns of effective leadership and realizing there are human beings behind the curtain.

Feel free to post comments or questions.

The following are directly quoted from Bloomberg Business, Jan. 7-13, 2013 issue, “Management Secrets from the Meanest Company in America,” by Caleb Hannan. Excerpts from pages 46-51:

Directly Quoted Excerpts	Comments
"living rebuke...that suggest fostering happy, self-actualized employees and transparent environment of trust and communal effort is the path to wealth" p. 48	From an organizational behavior perspective, he likely has had a negative impact on the important follower variables that cause improved performance (e.g. employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior).
"Pounding people to submission" p. 48	Autocratic/demeaning style can impact all.
"Unilaterally making decisions" p. 48	People tend to support things they have had some involvement in creating; if decisions are made without being included, some will support but with a minimal amount of excitement and effort.
"He trusted his own judgment best" p. 48	He probably hires the uneducated; he certainly does not need the college prepared if he does not need them to make independent judgments.
"He screamed so loud" p.49	Ugh!
"Requires short-term pain for long-term gain" p. 49	Taskmaster: Nothing inherently wrong with this, but who wants to work with pain?
"Dismissive of employees," she says, "like we were just cattle put into a pen." p. 49	Does anyone want to be treated like cattle or an object to meet a goal?
"Capable of a Warren Buffett-style folksy charm" p. 49	Is he a genuine leader or does he "put on the face" he needs to?
"Reserves his signature for anything over $100,000" p. 49	Suggests he needs to be in control. Is leadership about control?
"If a worker is late, an e-mail is immediately sent to human resources, which then sends another to that person's boss, and sometimes directly to Ergen." p. 49	Don't make a mistake in this place!
"Quarterly meeting....Ergen expressed frustration that some employees couldn't make it to work on time when there was snow on the ground. As a solution, he encouraged employees to book nearby hotel rooms at their expense--when the weather report called for a few inches of powder." p. 49	Low Relationship issue; concern for bottom line only. No concern for family.
[Caused] "a culture of condescension and distrust." p. 49	Trust is an essential ingredient to effective leadership.
"If employee [on expenses] ...tipped more than 15 percent, the extra amount was then subtracted from his paycheck, even if he'd gone over a nickel." p. 49	OMG!
"Ergen treats outsiders, including major investors, with equal disdain, and Wall Street gets little love from him." p. 49	Narcissistic behaviors.
Uses litigation as a profit center.	Does not assist business to sustain for the long term.

References

¹ Yukl, G. (2012). Effective Leadership Behavior: What We Know and What Questions Need More Attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66 - 85. Quote located in Table 1 on page 68.