Kenton Hyatt and Cheryl De Ciantis

Kenton Hyatt

Cheryl De Ciantis

Introduction

This exploration into leadership is not yet another leadership prescription, offering what should be done. It is an approach that offers a multi-prism lens that allows for a variety of leadership needs and styles, and yet keeps their description at manageable levels. It is descriptive, not prescriptive, and decidedly not judgmental. This approach promotes a clearer observation of what passes for leadership, which also provides some insight about how to proceed in the future. And while this is not a complete review nor critique of leadership theories, a brief summary is useful to establish a general identification of how leadership is most often characterized.

“Leadership Chaos” might be used to describe the political, social, economic, religious, and environmental conditions for much of the first decade of the 21^st Century. The difficulties faced in all of these various domains are so drastic that it is difficult to refrain from being sarcastic about the effectiveness and utility of what is referred to as “leadership development.” In the continuing, increasingly complex, and changing challenges, many of which have potentially disastrous implications, the need for effective leadership is greater now than perhaps at any time in recorded history. And at the same time, what is being called for in terms of leadership sounds as confusing as the issues and conditions facing us. We often hear of the need for strong leaders, results driven leaders, servant leaders, charismatic leaders, heroic leaders, collaborative leaders, innovative leaders, tribal leaders, and more. But what we observe in those calls for leadership is that each arises out of an ideologically driven world, and implies that every other type of leader, except the type it is calling for, is ineffective, inappropriate, or just outright wrong.

Looking for clarity and direction in regard to effective leadership in academic discussions isn’t much help. A quick review of leadership theory will reveal many descriptions of, and prescriptions for leadership, but there is little agreement about how we might effectively approach the complexity of the world. For the most part, the clamor for “effective leadership” simply refers to leadership that reinforces what is already desired. People call for what they already understand to be best, for them.

Questions like “What makes an effective, great leader?” And, “How should I lead to best succeed in my particular situation?” seem to beg for a prescription, but the answers, as will be shown, are not resolved to simple behavioral prescriptions. Nevertheless, the first step to effective leadership is an awareness of styles, and the motivating values that underlie those styles. What is presented makes it possible to understand both leadership style and what allows for or inhibits development and flexibility.

Leadership Theories

Much of the time leadership is defined with characteristics of achievement results[1], personal traits,[2] power[3], designated authority[4], stewardship[5], relationship abilities,[6] and charisma[7]. These characteristics come to us as approaches, theories, and models of leadership that have labels like Trait Theory, Charismatic Leadership, Power Theory, Situational Leadership, Servant Leadership, and more. We do not disagree that these are important and sometimes useful ways to discuss leadership and specific leaders. But far too quickly we find ourselves deeply involved in a discussion about leadership without an awareness that all definitions and discussions of leadership are framed within a set of priorities that are based on assumptions about what leadership already is. The assumptions and priorities that each description carries often operate as limitations to our discussions and understanding of leadership, saying in effect, ‘Look at this part of leadership first (then look at everything else).’

Contrary to leadership responsibilities and behaviors, leadership theories and models are pretty simple. Leaders are commonly required to be, all at the same time, visionary, strategic, attentive to the core business, keep people aligned with the organizational mission, and make sure the organization stays competitive, while staying calm in stressful situations. Leadership theory focuses on one aspect of leadership and tries to explain it. So it is easy to see why nearly every theory successfully explains some leadership some of the time.

The values based model suggested in the following pages provides a framework with which to understand leadership styles in general, and allows for specific situational influences to emerge without requiring yet another theory. This model provides a series of flexible perspectives with which to frame leadership as it exists, within a dynamic set of responsibilities and relationships, and helps us understand and even predict what will happen in complex and stressful situations.

We will refer to several of the more commonly used leadership theory types (Trait, Contingency, Servant, etc.) as contrast to the values model presented here,  however, it is not our intention to provide you with a review of existing leadership theory. There are many widely available texts and internet sources that review and discuss the field.[8] Our objective is to provide an accessible and pragmatic approach to leadership, one that does not favor a particular style of leadership over others, an approach which suggests each style can be effective, but that each also has its limitations and potential pitfalls.

The Values Perspective Approach to Leadership

The Values Perspective approach to leadership offered here is an outgrowth of six basic perspectives or world views developed during the past century by major authors in values theory. These perspectives describe how we frame and prioritize our perceptions and actions, and can be located along a continuum that can be described by two concepts, scope and dynamism.

In the first part of this of this paper we will briefly introduce and describe these perspectives after which we will suggest and discuss four basic leadership styles, which come from the values perspectives, and which follow along the same continuum of scope and dynamism.

Each of the six Values Perspectives is an approach to human values, which operate as worldviews, and through which we perceive and express ourselves. In this model there is no implication or suggestion that one perspective is in any way better, or more well developed, or advanced than another. They are simply, and profoundly, views on the world. They are Grounding, Family, Management, Relational Awareness, Systems Awareness, and Expansion and are briefly described:

Values Perspectives

Widening Scope – Increasing Dynamism

At the Grounding Perspective end of the continuum, those holding this worldview also work with a narrowly focused perceptual scope, and prioritize stability—the establishment and maintenance of stability in the world. In each of the other perspectives, moving toward the Expansion Perspective, perceptual scope widens, and tolerance, for and expectation of change increases. For a more complete description of the perspectives, we’ll refer you to, and recommend “Values Perspectives,” a paper which more fully describes each perspective.[9]

Since there are literally thousands of human values, trying to identify which specific values might be most effective in terms of leadership would be a tedious task indeed. Nevertheless, a few specific examples of values for each perspective are useful to operationalize the various perspectives.

The sample values shown in each perspective are typical priorities for individuals, groups, and organizations, and can be defined generically, and then expanded or placed in specific contexts to provide more specific operational defining behaviors. There are many additional values associated with each perspective that are not identified, simply because each list would become unwieldy, and would inevitably omit other values.

Therefore, as you consider these perspectives, you may think of additional specific values, important to you that have not been included in these examples. We invite you to pencil in or mentally place such values you have identified in an appropriate perspective.

Each of us uses a particular perspective as a sort of home base. It is from that core perspective that we frame and filter the information we perceive, and it is from that same perspective that we send messages and create relationships. The specific values on which we depend most do occupy a priority order, but that order is quite flexible, and often changes quickly to meet situational demands. Top priority values are also highly influenced by culture, age, gender and other important variables. In spite of those influences, our home base, or core perspective, remains relatively stable. Of course it too can change because values are subject to our conscious choices as well as external influences, but changes in one’s core perspective are usually not frequent in adults.

The values we use to govern our lives are not limited to the core perspective we call home. Indeed, an individual’s values commonly span across the entire continuum. For example a given individual might hold a Management perspective with specific, supporting, highlighted values, shown here:

Widening Scope – Increasing Dynamism

In the above example, all of the selected values support the individual’s core perspective of Management, values within that perspective, and those selected from other perspectives as well. Generally speaking, individuals tend to rely on 6-10 values to govern most of daily life. Some values are not prioritized but remain in the background to draw on when needed; they may be considered foundational for a given person. Other values may operate as goals to which one aspires, but does not yet possesses the behavioral skills to fully implement. These may be considered vision values. Those values which are in daily awareness and use might be considered one’s focus values.

Leadership Styles           

Four leadership styles are a function of the above general values perspectives: Individual-Centered Leadership, Designated Authority Leadership, Relational Leadership, and Systems Leadership. The relationship of these leadership styles to the above values perspectives is represented here:

Widening Scope – Increasing Dynamism

Don’t miss this point: As is the case with the six values perspectives, there is no implication in this model that one leadership style is any better or more advanced or mature in any way than another. Also, it is important to recognize the linear, left to right bias that is often an implied or assumed underpinning in representations, particularly graphic representations, that each sequential style is a further development of the previous one, which culminates in a sort of ultimate leader. However, both theoretically, and experientially, we have found that is a flawed approach to leadership, and eventually results in conclusions that simply cannot be supported and prescriptions which often don’t make sense. Just as there is no judgment of morality or developmental sophistication attached to the values perspectives, the model that is derived from those perspectives is also free from judgments of morality or intelligence of any sort. One leadership style does not necessarily lead to, nor does it follow from, another.

What is important is to understand that each of these leadership styles has appropriate applications. Each has strengths and each has its limitations. The values associated with each style all require individual behavioral skills and competencies. So even though one may have personal charisma, hold a high office, be sensitive to others, or be highly visionary, without the behavioral competencies to back up the values that drive each style, one may end up being a very poor example of a leader.

Additionally, there is nothing in the identification of these styles that restricts a given person to a single style of leadership. As with our core values perspective, we tend to favor a particular leadership style as native or natural for us, so exercising flexibility in leadership style may be a challenge. And either by habit or native preferences, we tend to draw on specific values. But values are subject to choice, so we might include any array of values in our basic leadership style. Importantly, we can employ characteristics of several styles while maintaining that core style. With that in mind, let us begin our investigation into these four leadership styles so we can then consider the issue of flexibility later.

Individual-Centered Leadership

This leadership style is about security. The two values perspectives called Grounding and Family are both primarily oriented toward the establishment and maintenance of all types of security as a general, governing priority. Those perspectives combine into an application called Individual-Centered leadership. This leadership style depends on, and therefore establishes, a single and central individual as the leader of a group or organization. Think of it as the hub of a wheel. No matter how many spokes there are, all the spokes depend primarily on the hub to hold the entire group or organization together, and provide integrity as well as coordinate information.

Individual-Centered leadership is not limited to small groups, but that context is a common venue in which to find it operating. Imagine a typical start-up business where the entrepreneur is often the inventor, marketer, HR director, and more. The fledging organization must depend on the leader for nearly every decision whether it be business, technical, or human relationship oriented. All information flows though this person, and everyone depends on him or her. If you are thinking things like “That leader needs to learn how to delegate,” or other judgmental thoughts, consider that without a successful implementation of the Individual-Centered leadership style, the new business will not survive long enough for delegation that needs to develop. But it is true that this is a primarily directive style, and requires a great deal of energy and attention from a single source. Depending on the situation at hand the leader may exercise a great deal of latitude in his or her leadership.

There are many examples occurring in highly sophisticated situations which require centralized information and authority, hence, an Individual-Centered leadership style. Consider the leaders of some medical teams where a central physician is leading a team of well trained professionals. Accurate and timely information flow often requires centrality of leadership to ensure that various interventions, medications, and therapies work in harmony and for the patient’s needs and recovery. In other emergency situations, a single authority is the only way to assure the safety and well being of not only those being treated or helped, but the well being of others helping or simply observing. The Individual-Centered leadership style can be observed to be working in any industry or organization, ranging from film directors, to teachers, to sports team coaches.

When the Individual-Centered leader is working at his or her best, this leader can and often does engender an identification between individuals in the group and the leader in terms of belonging and group membership, which is always accompanied by a sense of security. When this leadership style is well developed, the fundamentals of relationships, safety, courtesy, and respect are exemplified in this leader’s common behaviors. When problems arise, individual self esteem and self worth are not threatened, thereby creating an atmosphere where honesty can be both expected and reciprocated. When safety – that is, physical, psychological, and social – are established first, people are not offended by the centrality of this leadership style when it occurs as a natural, situational consequence. People have the confidence that their own contributions will be respected, valued, and rewarded by the leader they support. And at the same time, each individual leader is free to work from his or her particular strengths and talents.

The Individual-Centered style gives rise to various common and popular leadership models. Indeed, the most popular model of all leadership theories is usually termed the Trait theory. It is primarily concerned with the identification of personal traits attributed to successful leaders with the implicit assumption that careful emulation of those traits will result in successful leadership in general. While it certainly sounds like a reasonable strategy, the application of the Trait theory has not resulted in the reliable identification nor development of effective leaders. Trait theory also assumes that all the successful traits of a leader can be behaviorally identified, that those traits can be transferred to or learned by others through observation and practice, and that the application of those traits is sufficient for most if not all situations. None of those assumptions is supported by research nor practice. Yet the Trait theory of leadership remains, far and away, the most popular leadership model we have.

The Trait theory of leadership has its variations, some of which are treated as separate theories and models. Charismatic leadership is one of those. Because charisma is considered a particularly powerful leadership trait as it emphasizes the assumption imbedded in the general Trait theory that leadership, especially exceptional leadership, is based on talents and gifts with which certain people were born. However, Charisma has also been shown through many years of research to be a composite of traits that that combine into an overall quality of attractiveness, but all the contributing areas are quite variable, intangible and elusive. And although charisma is a wonderful and powerful set of leadership traits and skills, it isn’t always available. Indeed, it seems to be frustratingly unavailable sometimes when situations could benefit from it the most. So as a leadership theory or model, it provides little for us except to help identify charisma. Finally, charismatic leadership can appear in conjunction with any of the four major leadership styles discussed here as a personality driven subset of leadership and is not actually a leadership style in and of itself.

The “Great Man” theory is an additional variation on this theme, and the term itself, with its gender bias, begins to show the limitations of this approach to leadership, however, it is not limited to a male orientation and women can assume an analogous role. The same perspective and leadership style will of course drive the same or similar behaviors. One of the underlying assumptions to this variation of the Individual-Centered leadership style is that great leaders are born, not developed.

However, a quick consideration of leaders considered to be charismatic or particularly gifted, those whose stories find their way into the mythology of the organizations they have led, will show not only their contributions, but also the difficulty that was experienced when a replacement leader was required.

In addition to succession problems, Individual-Centered leadership does not scale up easily, and more rarely successfully. Many organizations have difficulty in changing their fundamental culture when they expand in size, and an important part of that difficulty is because the organization’s leadership model no longer meets its needs. The result in those organizations is often a lack of cultural unity with small areas defined by function and referred to as silos that are familial in nature and headed by competing leaders, each the center of his or her area. In worst case situations Individual-Centered leaders can range from benignly patronizing, parental figures to authoritarian dictators, and history has plenty of examples of this sort of leader. Smaller versions of the abuse of this style abound in organizations and we suspect you have encountered more than one in your own experience and may be thinking about it right now.

Of course, the primary example of Individual-Centered leadership is the parent-child relationship where parents exercise legal, moral, and security decisions in unquestioned authority, especially when children are very small. But this in no way implies this style of leadership only allows for followers that should be treated as children. Indeed this brings us to the limitations of this style. When leaders treat adults as children using the Individual-Centered leadership style, and when we consider that this style is often accompanied by the power to control money and time, a co-dependent and dysfunctional pattern can easily be established where followers support leader behavior regardless of ethical implications because of fears or threats of retaliation by the authoritarian leader. It is ironic that in Western cultures, where individual independence is highly prized, that the highly directive Individual-Centered leadership style is also highly prized.

Common Contexts: Religion, Business, Education, Healthcare, Government

The concept of a pastor is the perfect example of the Individual-Centered religious leader. This is a caretaker role, one that stresses belonging to the group. The metaphor used to describe the primary group in this context is a flock, and the pastor provides spiritual, and many times social and financial security or at least counseling, particularly in terms of scriptural interpretations and questions. The message is based in obedience, and often that God loves each person which affirms self worth. Basic messages of honesty, loyalty and respect are stressed and endlessly reinforced.

As mentioned above, in the business environment, the Individual-Centered leader can take several roles. Typically he or she is a supervisor or manager of a small group of people, small enough to carefully keep track of each relationship. In new businesses, or start-ups, this is often if not almost always the entrepreneur, inventor, and/or owner of the business. In larger organizational settings this person is often in charge of all the activities of a given team which usually has a specific set of objectives. Regardless of the competence and experience of the team members, the Individual-Centered business leader is often very directive in his or her communications with team members, where the leader gives assignments and directions, and gets direct, work related responses.

In educational situations, the teacher or professor is the immediate example of this leadership style, for more than formal authority, the teacher has the knowledge that the students, by definition, lack and need. And while more student autonomy is often provided as grade level increases, even in graduate seminars, the students ultimately look to the professor as the source of knowledge, interpretation and evaluation of all relevant information in regard to a particular course of study.

In healthcare, the Individual-Centered leader is most often the principal or attending physician, but in his or her place, a nurse or other health care professional steps into the same context which demands a parental orientation toward the patient. Of course there are variations on the style depending on the function and the different priority values that operate. For example nurses may prioritize caretaking and kindness, whereas doctors may emphasize obedience, honesty, and discipline. The different priority values will change the flavor and nature of each individual leader, but they will likely all operate within the general Individual-Centered style.

Individual-Centered governmental leaders often self select into positions of singular responsibility and even notoriety. It would seem that leaders with this style would naturally be attracted to elected positions, which can be accurate, but we should not assume that all elected officials use this style, nor that this style is in any way limited to elected positions. Nevertheless, regardless of the scope of responsibility, from local government to national, this leadership style can be often observed. Internationally, Individual-Centered leadership examples are common, perhaps too common, particularly in governmental systems that allow for the concentration of information and power. However, in more democratic systems, this leadership style can create challenges because of mismatched expectations and fundamental perceptions.

The Individual-Centered leader always must deal with the challenge of becoming too much of the center, too depended upon. To be effective, this style requires that a leader spend time and energy maintaining each individual relationship in the group. Perfectly equal distribution of attention is never possible, and the result is often that some group members may begin to feel like the leader is playing favorites. If group members respond negatively to that perception, whether accurate or not, it may become a self-reinforcing or self fulfilling prophecy.

In small organizations where the entire group culture is familial, the necessary centrality and directive quality of the leader tends to keep the organizational structure tight, with true delegated authority at a minimum, usually to a few tested and trusted individuals.

Individual-Centered behavior may be benign, but dependence on that leader does not change. In less than optimum circumstances the leader may become authoritarian or dictatorial with a punitive, “My way or the highway,” style. As a leader’s status grows, so does both dependence on that person, and hence his or her position as the “Great Man.” (or woman) where the leader assumes a guru type of position (in the limited, non-generative sense), involving the attribution of personal knowledge and power, control of resources, and being an information gatekeeper.

Individual-Centered leadership often makes clear who is to be considered an “insider” or an “outsider.”  The centrality of this leadership style tends to create tight relationships among insiders. And when this perspective and leadership style is generalized to a large social or cultural level it shows itself through attitudes and behaviors of ethnocentrism and xenophobia. Status and prestige is highly important and marked by being a group insider, identified by the display of insider knowledge of routine behavior and obedience. Gaining favor and personal approval are governing issues for each group member.

What keeps this leadership style from becoming nothing more than an ego-driven authoritarian? It is both the responsibility of stakeholder and leader to keep in mind that what is driving the organization is not the leader per se, but the work or the mission of the group. Of course the default is to make the leader totally responsible, and to take total responsibility, respectively. The trick for the leader is the ability to keep the work and his or her personality separate. The tendency of most team members, because of previous conditioning, is to conflate the two. That is, in peoples’ minds, the leader is the work, and vice versa. So successful, sustainable Individual-Centered leadership also presupposes that the leader has enough self awareness, and self management skills to keep his or her ego in check. Without a self-aware leader, this style can easily lead to a leadership style marked by authoritarian, parental favoritism, and co-dependent relationships. This leader is always at risk in regard to confusing one’s self with the power that is inherent in leadership. While all leaders must operate with an appreciation and respect of their power, this particular style can most easily conflate self aggrandizement with legitimate leadership.

Designated Authority Leadership

Leadership defined by designated authority is essentially the manner by which most organizations are run. It is a very old concept, and can be traced back to military and religious examples thousands of years old. When organizations remain small, it is common and largely most effective for a single person to remain the center of the organization. However, a part of the nature of nearly all successful organizations is growth, which most of the time is an inherent part of what it means to be successful. The corresponding increase in command and control (and therefore leadership) needs, often remains a continual difficulty. The apparent solution to this challenge is to divide the work and delegate formal authority accordingly. On the surface, larger numbers of people allow for  better management of increasing technical complexity and leveraging diversity of thought and skill, both resulting in an economy of size. Larger organizations can get more done, more efficiently.

But such change is not simply one of size, but structure, process, culture, the way authority is approached, leadership style, and of course a change in values with their supporting skills. [RV1]

The values in the Management values perspective, reviewed above, are concerned with efficiency and organizational structure. Leadership in larger organizations is dependent on the ability of an individual to first establish and then interpret strategy, policy, and standardized procedure. The shift from the central idea of the Individual-Centered leader, to the central idea of the office, or authority of the leader (as established by the delegated authority from the institution), is fundamental and profound.

The general objective of this leadership style is the establishment and maintenance of a stable environment[RV2] . This is a shift in overall focus from security to stability, which are generally connected to each other. But the values and supporting skills associated with the Designated Authority style are quite different from the Individual-Centered style of leadership. The stability sought by Designated Authority leadership also seeks for maximum efficiency, and eventual predictability in regard to everything from daily operations to strategic planning. That sort of order and predictability is a function of rationality, which is the primary means for governing. The assumption guiding this style is that the leader can literally think him or herself to success. Obviously this leadership style lends itself to the strengths of particular cognitive preferences and styles, and creates a cycle of self-selection, and reinforcing institutional mindsets. Evidence for this phenomenon is well established through various areas of research, but a good example is in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator research that finds that people with a Thinking preference tend to self select into positions that allow them to leverage this natural tendency.[10] This is a powerful and productive leadership style that leads to effective rationality and critical thinking, and the achievement of tangible objectives, assuming that change factors in the internal and external environment can be sufficiently anticipated and managed.

However, it may fall short in exploiting the long-term competitive advantages derived from forming and sustaining positive relationships between leaders and stakeholders due to viewing relationship skills as mere “tools” of effective leaders. The Designated Authority leadership style may also lack the agility that derives from flexible structures and attitudes because it depends on the establishment and maintenance of a stable environment, even though in reality environments are complex and changing.

This is the style of leadership for which people are most often rewarded in modern societies (and their organizations), so it should not be surprising that this is the style of leadership most often taught and emulated. Of the four basic leadership styles, Designated Authority leadership behaviors are generally the most predictable of the values based leadership styles because those behaviors are pre-scripted by policy. And when compared to other leadership styles, the behaviors of this style are also more similar across industry and organizational boundaries, and are more generally applicable to dissimilar situations than any of the other styles. So in this sense, Designated Authority leaders may appear similar to each other, which is not surprising when one examines the curricula of MBA programs.

A Note On Leadership and Management

This is a well worn and familiar topic of discussion in the management and leadership literature. It concerns the description of people holding positions of responsibility, and asks two questions: Are people who hold positions of responsibility leaders, or managers? And which of the two is more desirable? This is actually fairly easy to deal with because the question presupposes the two exist on a sort of continuum as if in their extreme interpretation they are polar opposites.[11] From a functional position this dichotomy may be useful, and may make sense, but from a values framework, this is a false and forced dichotomy, but one that is often supported as if it is “common sense.” But common sense has been shown to be wrong every time any sort of important innovation or breakthrough in thinking has been made. Suffice it to say that there are no managers that do not have leadership opportunities and responsibilities, and no leaders that do not have responsibilities and opportunities to manage at least themselves, not to mention other people and resources. This is not to say the entire body of literature that addresses Management vs. Leadership should be rejected out of hand. However, this designation is far too convenient, and is both easily and continually reinforced formally and informally. Its overuse prevents us from understanding and working productively simultaneously, as both managers and leaders.  While everyone may not hold designated positional authority or position, from a values perspective, everyone does have both management and leadership opportunities and responsibilties. Therefore, we do not extend the classification of Manager vs. Leader as a general leadership style, but as a functional difference, primarily within organizations, that commonly describes different responsibilities, expectations, and values in regard to leadership in a general sense.

Common Contexts: Religion, Business, Education, Healthcare, Government

Religious leadership based on a Designated Authority style is quintessentially leadership of orthodox, established, and formal procedures and behaviors designated, many times explicitly, by formal interpretations and prescriptions. The formal rituals found in many religions are good examples of this style as they depend on some sort of formal initiation, and accompanying title, to perform as a recognized representative of the organization as a whole. From the perspective of this leadership style, ceremonies, rituals, even meetings are simply not considered to be efficacious without the authority to invoke, celebrate, and convene by virtue of that authority. The point is that religious leaders using this style are credible simply because of the office they may hold. The interpretation of scripture and other officially sanctioned information is also a function of the office of the leader, and formally is not subject to subjectively personal interpretation or influence. And when we consider this application for Designated Authority leadership, we can also immediately see that a leader is not limited to one style, but can employ the Individual-Centered style in combination or separate from a Designated Authority style. This is not necessarily a contradiction, but simply a shift, or combining, based on situational need.

In business, the key operating value often used to describe leaders working from the Designated Authority style is responsibility. While this is a specific value with a specific definition, it is often used as an indicator for the amount and quality of organizational power a given person may hold. And it carries the tacit assumption of loyalty to the institutional authority of the organization.

The concepts of command and control have been used for many years to describe designated authority, which itself is a catchphrase that is widely used to describe the nature of the work in which managers and leaders engage. As a leadership style Designated Authority thrives in larger organizations where political acumen is as valuable for success as technical and business competence because in this context effective leadership is accomplished by respecting and working through the formal processes, procedures, and policies of the organization. At times, the formal, orthodox methods are reinterpreted or even ignored. However, when this happens, the Designated Authority leader may be taking considerable risk because his or her actions actually run counter to the formal authority structure. The underlying premise for this leadership style is that its power ultimately rests in the organization or institution itself, which usually prioritizes results more highly than strict adherence to established policy.

In education and healthcare, the Designated Authority leadership style is most often clearly observed in staff and administrative positions. Area and department chairs, deans, provosts, and the like are also obvious examples, and behave organizationally in large measure like business leaders. But individually, when acting in the academic or technical arenas, they can share an interesting similarity to religious leaders, and simultaneously employ Individual-Centered leadership as well as Designated Authority leadership. The combination of the two in the educational context can make life difficult, especially for students, which is of course ironic when the goals of education are considered.

We tend to think that large governmental organizations, national, state, provincial, or regional, are complex, bureaucratic, and bound by an unintelligible web of laws, rules, and policies. These characteristics are not limited to large governments but can apply to counties, cities, and departments as well. The Designated Authority leader in government can be the ultimate bureaucrat, but need not be when such a person includes additional values in his or her personal profile such as flexibility and risk as well as more expected values such as productivity and critical thinking.

Generally, regardless of specific context, overdependence on Designated Authority leadership can over rely on rationality, limit the flexibility of behavior and thinking, and ignore the emotional aspects of organizational relationships.

Relational Leadership

All leadership is relationship based. It almost seems ridiculous to have to point that out, but the first two styles discussed so far, Individual-Centered and Designated Authority, have a tendency to either focus on the person per se, or the office held by the leader, and both place the leader as primary and his or her relationships as secondary. It is easy to forget that without both leaders and followers there is no leadership at all. Leadership always involves a reciprocal, albeit in most cases a tacit, acceptance of the nature of that relationship.

Relational Leadership is markedly different from Individual-Centered and Designated Authority leadership styles in that it places the relationship in a primary position of focus. Instead of prioritizing security and stability, Relational Leadership is a process orientation to leadership which prioritizes the process of forming and maintaining relationships. It is equally important to point out that from this perspective relationships are always dynamic.[12]  The first two leadership styles assume relationships to exist in support of results, while Relational Leadership assumes results to be a natural function of creating and maintaining relationships. And while the Relational Leader may be quite comfortable with the necessary flexibility required to swim in the soup of emotions and relationships, as well as results, other leaders with a security or stability orientation may not be as comfortable with the emotional ambiguity and dynamic complexity of human relationships.

Relational leadership draws on values that both develop and sustain relationships, but that also require self-knowledge and a sense of one’s strengths and limitations. The communication processes of asking questions, listening, being open, and trust are greatly emphasized. Individual values of creativity and risk taking support self awareness. A quick review of the values of the Family and Management perspectives will indicate these values are very different from the supporting values of those perspectives. Of course the values alone are not sufficient for effective leadership, but require behavioral competency in two fundamental areas, self awareness and other awareness. Effective leadership can only be accomplished when the leader knows him or herself and is willing to engage in the work of self development, which requires working with others. So the relational leader often defines his or her leadership success in terms of being able to “relate to everyone” regardless of inevitable conflicts, shifting contexts and changing priorities.

Relational leadership is, therefore, much greater than simply being able to give good presentations, conduct interviews or hold conversations with others. This style, perhaps more than any other, appreciates and leverages the fundamental nature of leadership itself, that is, leadership is foremost a relationship between leader and stakeholder, and this style places the importance of this dynamic in top priority.

Common Contexts: Religion, Business, Education, Healthcare, Government

The religious context lends itself to and supports the Relational Leadership style well. In those religious situations where relational leadership is present, values such as openness, listening, self-development, being present, and trust are the primary building blocks of pastoral types of communication and counseling situations whether they occur between ministers and members or in peer-to-peer relationships. While sympathy and charity are values that are identified, respectively, with the Family perspective (Individual-Centered leadership style), and Management perspective (Designated Authority leadership style), empathy is found in the Relational perspective and leadership style. Relational leadership is ideally suited to support the maxim, a variation of which is found in all the world’s major religions, and known in the Christian tradition as the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Business, health care, educational, and governmental contexts provide similar opportunities for relational leadership, where customer or patient focus is the behavioral representation of empathy. In addition the leader is characterized by having facilitator and conflict manager skills. This is the manger/leader with an open door policy, one that always has time to listen to a problem, holds a personalized development meeting with each employee (and follows up on the ensuing plan), asks questions before jumping to conclusions, and is known for his or her conflict management abilities. Meetings are characterized with questions that elicit comments and contributions from more reticent individuals, and feedback is grounded in behavior rather than personal characteristics.

So who wouldn’t want to lead this way? What tends to be overlooked with regard to the relational leadership style is that there are potential barriers to its effectiveness, which we have personally, and often seen in organizations of all types and sizes. Three of the most important are:

ž• Relational leadership is foreign to current organizational culture, and is often rejected as “soft,” uncompetitive, and lacking goal or achievement focus.

•ž The majority of successful individuals in organizations possess cognitive styles that prioritize rational processes over relational processes.

•ž There is little effective training in regard to the skills that would support relational leadership, which requires long-term personal follow up.

In contrast to the first two styles, leaders in the Relational style can operate externally or adjunct to organizations, for example as consultants and outside experts. There are important reasons for this. The default leadership style in nearly all medium to large modernistic organizations (corporate, non-profit, educational, governmental) is Designated Authority, and as we have discussed above places priorities on achievement (results), and stability based on established procedures. Relationship skills and the development of self-awareness are seen as a means to these ends.

Not that Relational leaders do not recognize the importance of achievement, but this style often supports the assumption that results will follow the establishment and maintenance of healthy relationships. This is a process-oriented priority to leadership rather than a “results” oriented priority. The difference is not just conceptual, but functional, and commonly leads to mismatched expectations and approaches, both in regard to the ongoing operational definition of effective leadership in organizations, and approaches to leadership development, where demand is on achievement, even though “leadership development” programs emphasize values like listening, openness, and trust.

Various religious structures differ greatly in regard to the support and employment of this leadership style. However, religious contexts often rely on both designated authority, and relational leadership, which are sometimes mixed. Without clarification from the leader, confusion in regard to how a particular conversation should be interpreted is often the result of Relational leadership attempts.

In spite of all of the above resistance to Relational leadership, there is a great deal of longstanding research regarding its advantages.[13] As a representative example, one recent summary defined effective leadership style as “the manager’s ability to support, encourage, coach, and empower his or her staff so as to facilitate employee self-confidence, self-management, and interpersonal interactions.”[14]

When an individual begins to see the world from the Relational Awareness perspective, and values a Relational Leadership focus, he or she must be prepared to operate from a position that may enjoy little real external and internal support, no matter how much ink is spent on praising the virtues of this value set. This can be an extremely uncomfortable process to begin, and to sustain long enough to develop skills that can then begin to show tangible results.

Before you decide we are cynical about Relational Leadership, we at the Values Perspective hold that it is commonly the most needed leadership style in most organizations, and the style that has the least support. In our opinion, this style is behaviorally weak in organizations in general, and therefore the most critically needed style. For example, most leaders listen to evaluate before they listen to comprehend, which results in the eroding of the perception of respect and precludes the development of trust and collaboration.

A Note On Creativity

A special mention regarding creativity and the Relational Awareness leadership style is appropriate because Creativity, as a value, is found within the Relational values perspective. Most importantly, all people are creative regardless of a particular core perspective. The issue is not if leaders are creative, but just how they are creative.

The explicit need for innovative creativity (the knack for stepping outside problem definitions), is fostered by the values of the Relational Awareness perspective and Relational Leadership, as opposed to adaptive creativity and problem solving (creativity exercised within the parameters of a given problem or context boundaries) which are supported by the values of the Management perspective and Designated Authority leadership style.[15]

Amabile and Gryskiewicz describe six organizational factors that account for innovative creativity in groups and organizations: freedom to pursue a problem, challenge of the work itself, sufficient resources, group support, manager support, and organizational encouragement.[16] Five of these six factors are greatly influenced by the relationships that an individual has with others, particularly one’s direct manager/leader. This is not to say that creativity cannot occur without these factors in place, but that it is greatly enhanced or inhibited by these factors as they occur within a given organizational context.

Of course there is a great deal more to say about creativity, but for our purposes it is sufficient to recognize that creativity is usually a high priority for Relational Leadership, and is usually a much lower priority for Individual-Centered and Designated Authority leadership styles. This does not say however that relational leaders necessarily implement the factors that support individual or team creativity well.

Systems Leadership

Think connections, lots of them, and not just in terms of social networking contacts or “friends,” but think about those connections in such a way that each one is critical to the identity of a whole network. When one element is influenced in any way, such influence or action creates change that will resonate through out the system in which it occurs, and beyond. That is the sort of system with which Systems Leadership is concerned, and appreciates.

The Systems Leadership style assumes leadership cannot be, and is not, accomplished alone. Indeed from a Systems Awareness perspective, leadership is not accomplished at all, it is always an ongoing, dynamic process.

Often this style of leading is characterized in terms of a wide scope of vision compared with other leadership styles and the perspectives that support them, which would be accurate. But sometimes that characterization is pushed too far, and creates the implication that with an expansion of scope, systems leaders are able to see beyond organizational procedures, norms, and boundaries, which is often inaccurate.

In comparison to the centrality, structure, and relational focuses of the previous styles, the systems leader focuses on the need for multiple, interdependent relationships that form partnerships and collaborative communities, and providing a strategy and vision to that community. Because of these differences, this leadership style immediately challenges a leader to be able to communicate and relate to others that do not share this same perspective, and who likely will have a far different understanding of what it means to be an effective leader.

In this discussion, a systems approach to leadership must include the values of the individual leader, the values of the social system he or she leads, the values of others with whom the leader interacts, and the values of the larger situational context within which the leader operates. While this may seem an overwhelming amount of information to keep track of, systems leadership is defined by a widening of perception and an affinity for dynamism, so all those variables are just part of a day’s work for the systems leader.

Common Contexts: Religion, Business, Education, Healthcare, Government

Do not miss this point: Systems Leadership is not exclusive to higher levels of authority in large hierarchal organizations. There are people exercising Systems Leadership at every level in any size of organization, and there are Systems Leaders who are not in organizations at all. However, most examples will be noticed within the context of some sort of organization, and larger venues do imply a need for a Systems Leadership style.

In the context of organized religion, values such as integrity, spirituality, and ethics occur in the perspectives that support a systems approach to leadership. These have gained significant attention and enjoy a popular following. Servant Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Spiritual Leadership, and Transcendent Leadership are examples of leadership models and descriptions which have roots in, or that are directly applied to religious contexts. Of these, Servant Leadership, promoted and popularized by Robert Greenleaf, defines leadership not by trait or function, but by the values of listening, humility, service-to-others, and vision,[17] where leadership depends on predominance of systems from the Systems Awareness and Expansion perspectives.

Religious systems leaders do not abound, notably, since most religious organizations are, or quickly become orthodox by definition. Systems leaders do not usually prioritize orthodoxy, and therefore do not tend to have long tenures in structured, orthodox organizations. Indeed, they are often branded as heretics for their tendency to introduce change and innovation into a population that favors Individual-Centered or Designated Authority leadership.

Nevertheless, there are notable examples. Look to those individuals that create, or contribute to an external ecumenical, or internal interactive community within a given organization. The late Pope John XXIII of the Catholic Church is a good example. His creation of Vatican II, in the early 1960’s, an inter-denominational council orthodox and progressive groups that included non-Catholic and even non-Christian representatives, is a systems leadership example. Interestingly, the church is currently led by Pope Benedict XVI, a traditionalist, known for his orthodox approach, and strict dependence on his designated authority style of leading.

Systems leaders in business are often those who identify a vision for an organization, set a strategy and develop a team to implement that strategy. And as with nearly every other context, they do not seem to last long. Appearing to embrace change they often move quickly, and are misunderstood as losing track of the “core business” (i.e., traditional, and orthodox behavioral norms and expectations of the time), and frequently find themselves recipients of a retirement or separation package. While more numerous than relational leaders, they are in a small minority when compared to Individual-Centered and Designated Authority leaders.

Barak Obama is an excellent example of Systems Leadership in government. Both his rhetoric and actions prioritize collaboration and dialogue. Nearly every speech he has given addresses the future as well as a strategy for getting there. Unfortunately, he also, true to form, exhibits an apparent lack of awareness of the perceptions and operating perspectives of his opponents, who largely represent and desire an Individual-Centered leadership style. What Mr. Obama presents as an opportunity for dialogue and collaboration is perceived as a lack of leadership by Conservatives seeking a strong Individual-Centered style. Confronted with that apparent (from their perspective) leadership vacuum, they respond with even stronger and more radical responses, hence the voice given to the Tea Party faction of Congress.

Systems Awareness Leadership Limitations

In our individual leadership coaching work, we commonly encounter people in positions that have been required to shift their leadership style from Management, which supports a Designated Authority Leadership style, to Systems Awareness, which supports a Systems Leadership style. This is most often due to a promotion into a “leadership position.” However it is also common that those individuals often lack the skills associated with Relational Awareness leadership. This is important to Systems Leadership because there exists an implicit assumption operating in most organizations that people with good management skills will make good leaders. And “leaders” often means the ability to exercise individual initiative beyond established policy, as well as set a vision and function strategically for a given group or organization. What we often observe is that without Relational Leadership awareness and skills, the newly appointed “leader,” simply relies on his or her trusted management style and skills, which are often technical and operational rather than relational, strategic, collaborative, and innovative. This can result in a situation where the leader is pulled toward a “comfort zone” style that depends on authority and direct management without an understanding of how to effectively be able to draw on Relational and Systems Awareness values and skill sets. Without that extended “reach,” the individual becomes almost completely reliant on familiar behaviors and perhaps superficial attempts at development.

There is a further irony common to a Systems Leadership approach. It should be no surprise that Systems Leadership includes the ability to anticipate future developments and create a vision with which a given leader may help direct the efforts of others. As we have worked with and observed systems leaders, we have found it notable that the scope of systems leaders is often so broad, and their awareness so future oriented, they fail to pay attention to the internal needs of the organization! This becomes a particularly difficult situation if the rank and file members are more focused on and are expecting behaviors more characteristic of Individual-Centered or Organization style leadership, which is usually the case. When this happens the language used to describe the systems leader is often “blue sky,” “not realistic,” or “needs to stick to core business.” (At the same time, it is also often true that non-systems perspectives leaders and managers are labeled, “bean counters,” “short sided,” and “not strategic.”)

The above problem should not be dismissed as a strange sort of irony. Any leader described by his or her stakeholderss as “doesn’t get it,” has lost that support, and to that degree has ceased to function as a leader, except for what legitimate authority that person may hold.

In general, the Systems Leadership style suffers from an ironic lack of awareness of the values prioritized by people operating from other styles and perspectives. They can see the forest, but have no need to appreciate the trees.

Conclusions

A Note On Contingency Theory

Having developed the four basic leadership styles presented above, one might at this point be thinking this is simply just another contingency leadership theory—of which there are several already well known and important ones—but it is not.

Contingency theories are a group of leadership theories that operate on the basic principle that any approach to leadership might be the most appropriate, or most effective, depending on a specific situation and contexts.[18] The most well known of these is the being Situational Leadership model which suggest four leadership styles that are described by differing levels of directiveness.[19] The values based leadership styles suggested above, although there are also four, are not similar to those described by Situational Leadership.

The values based leadership style model presented in this article and the Values Perspective model both suggest that an effective leader should be able to operate with skills that are associated with all four leadership styles, Individual-Centered, Designated Authority, Relational Awareness, and Systems Awareness. And most importantly, that everyone already has a preferred style based on his or her own value priorities, but that preferred style does not, in the least, keep one from expanding or improving one’s current priority values. The preferred style, like one’s core values perspective tends to be a stable feature, but individual value choices and operation are very dynamic. Furthermore, we strongly suggest that one should not try to manipulate leadership styles as tools, the result of which would be inauthentic behavior. We have often heard executives complain about trying to behave in a disingenuous manner, about being afraid others will see through their attempts as acting, or worse. And for the most part, their fears are well founded. Others are not easily fooled, and such attempts only serve to erode trust, not develop it.

Our recommendation for effective leadership is simple: to be most effective, a leader should be able to identify the general perspective(s) of those with whom he or she works, and address some of the high priority values held by those people, regardless of what perspective that might be. How would one know what perspectives and values others hold? We reveal our values by our behavior and language. So the answer is pay attention, listen, and ask questions (with genuine listening in response). People are usually all too eager to share what is really important to them. The challenge then is not determining which leadership style is best, or most effective, but to engage in the challenging question, “How big is your reach?”  That is, can you reach from your own natural leadership style, to include values and associated skills that are high priority issues for those who prefer other leadership styles? This is a worthy developmental challenge for everyone, regardless of position or situation.

Stability Leadership vs. Dynamic Leadership

We have suggested four basic leadership styles that are based on different worldviews or values perspectives. And these four styles subsume most of the major leadership theories that have been identified for millennia, and thoroughly discussed for more than a century. But a further simplification is possible, and it is a simplification that also points out the tension inherent among these styles. This is a tension that constantly pulls leaders between the need to establish and maintain stability and the need to be flexible in managing, and sometimes precipitate change. This is a tension between stability leadership and dynamic leadership. We recognize that “Stability” does not have near the attractive, positive cultural connotations as “Dynamic.” It just isn’t as sexy. So we use these terms with some caution, and recommend that each has its own strengths and its own limitations.

Nevertheless, both the Individual-Centered leadership style and the Designated Leadership style share the common overall objective to achieve and maintain stability for those for whom those leaders are responsible. We have previously described these basic styles:

“…leaders whose preference is for stability tend toward centralized control, whether it takes the form of information, finances, or authority. Security is a high value for this type of leader, with regard to property and processes, and is a commonly articulated value with regard to their constituents. They are often more adaptive and incremental in their responses to innovation, and they tend to think of information as a commodity. Innovative technologies are subordinate to traditional means of communicating and influencing. Belonging, in the sense of being a recognized and trusted insider, is a key value and may operate as a way of gate-keeping information. Stability-preferring leaders can over-emphasize control and centrality until it becomes authoritarianism, becoming inflexible and lacking vision.”[20]

Whereas Relational Leadership and Systems Leadership not only recognize, but assume the need for flexibility and innovation because the world is by nature changing. They both comprise the dynamic leadership style.

“This is a style of both depending on, and assuming responsibility for, one’s own creativity, or the creativity of a group or network. Security tends to be a lower-priority value for this style. Generally, dynamic leadership has adopted each innovative technology much more readily than leaders who emphasize stability. And the use of the same technologies is markedly different. Whereas stability leaders use, for example, digital technologies to disseminate information as well as directives for its interpretation, dynamic leaders tend to use those technologies to create connections, and let the ensuing network generate share or even generate its own information. However they may become so caught up in the dynamics and exhilaration of change that they may lose track of practical objectives and the need for concrete results. They can be too visionary, too future-oriented, and undervalue the tactical and operational applications that justify why innovations were created in the first place.”[21]

These two concepts, stability and dynamism, encompass the span of the four leadership styles, Individual-Centered, Designated Authority, Relational, and Systems leadership. They also present two of the most basic objectives that drive leaders in any situation. The question for the leaders is do we maintain, or do we change, or do we try to do both, and how do we do it?

Final Thoughts

Each of us will also identify with one of the above four leadership styles more than the others, depending on our worldview (or Core Perspective) and the priority values that tend to govern most of our decisions, whether we hold formal positions of authority or operate in the world informally. From a values orientation, the saying “Everyone is a leader,” really is true.

However, values are not absolute. We can choose our values which are our priorities, at times even overriding hard-wired survival values. At the same time, we understand that humans like to organize the world so we can understand and work with it. And leadership style based on values is one of several ways to organize and understand leadership behavior which accounts for both perceptions and motivations. It is important to recognize that each leader is neither bound to any specific value, nor from including values usually associated with any other style as one’s own.

We do not underestimate the power of cultural expectations in regard to leadership, but leadership styles are not rigid categories. Leadership styles are general guidelines with which to understand the basic motivations and priorities of leaders. Understanding the historical and ideological roots to a particular leadership situation is fundamentally important to being able to identify governing styles and values.

And here is the “money that is left on the table:” One of the reasons we are presenting this description is to bring these styles and their associated values to your awareness, so that you, as a leader, might examine your own style, how that style might be strengthened, and what communication challenges you may face while working with people who either exercise or are expecting a different style. This development process is general, not limited to your professional life. We all lead, in some manner. The answers to the questions about how well you do it are up to you, but it is our intent that this model provides insights and useful challenges for you.

About the Authors

Kenton Hyatt, Ph.D. is a specialist in leadership, values, and communication. He is an international facilitator, trainer, executive coach and program designer. He has worked with thousands of individual executives that represent nearly every major industry, nonprofit, educational, and governmental organizations. His professional experience includes a career in higher education teaching interpersonal, group, organizational, intercultural and visual communication, being a director for the European Leadership Development program for the Center for Creative Leadership, an internal consultant and coach for Granite Construction, and an independent consultant with his wife and fellow collaborator, Cheryl De Ciantis in their consultancy at Kairios. He is the co-author of The Values Perspective assessment survey. More information regarding the Values Perspective can be found at Kairios.

Cheryl De Ciantis, Ph.D. is an experienced international consultant, program designer, facilitator and executive coach. Since 1985, Cheryl has worked to foster leadership and creativity and propel innovation, at all organizational levels and in multiple industries and service sectors and in higher education. She has served as Director of the Brussels, Belgium campus of Center for Creative Leadership. She was a core designer and deliverer for two of the Center’s most innovative programs: Leading Creatively (which was a key intervention in a major technology company’s breakthrough R&D project selection process) and LeaderLab® (which won recognition as a model program from the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence). In 2001, Cheryl co-founded her own consulting company, Kairios Group, based in Tucson, Arizona. With her husband and collaborative partner, Dr. Kenton Hyatt, Cheryl is the co-author of the Values Perspective^TM personal and group values survey.