Leadership Style Analysis. A cross country vision in terms of leadership profiles

Transcription

1 Leadership Style Analysis A cross country vision in terms of leadership profiles 1

2 2011 Dynargie. All rights reserved. fdsfki+pfas Executive Summary - Abstract This executive summary reports a comparative study of leadership styles, in a cross country perspective, according to Dynargie s seminar Leadership Style Analysis (LSA). It analysis and describes data collected from the participants of the following countries: Brazil, Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. The main objective is to compare and systematize data from the LSA questionnaire in terms of leadership profile. A quantitative approach of the surveys sample is the methodology adopted. Keywords: situational leadership, surveys analysis, leadership profile 2

3 1) What is Situational Leadership? In the late 1970s, early 1980 s, Hersey and Blanchard became known as the co-authors of the Situational Leadership Model. The fundamental underpinning of the Situational Leadership concept is that there is no single best style of leadership. Effective leadership can be both task and/or relationship oriented. Another premise is that the most successful leaders are those who adapt their leadership style to the maturity of the individual or group they are attempting to lead/influence. Maturity means the capacity to set high but attainable goals, willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience of an individual or a group for the task. Effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but also depends on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished. This Situational Leadership was the theoretical model chosen and adapted for Dynargie seminars. 2) Leadership Styles vs. Readiness Leadership becomes situational when a leader is able to identify employees readiness level regarding a specific task and, therefore, adjust his/her own leadership style to be more effective. Four readiness levels are defined: R1: low competence, low motivation; R2: low competence, high motivation; R3: high competence, low motivation; and R4: high competence, high motivation to perform a certain task. There are four leadership styles characterized in terms of amount of direction and support that the leader gives to relationship and/or the task: Style 1 (S1): Directive style is when leaders define the roles and tasks of the follower, and supervise them closely. This style is adapted for people who lack competence and motivation to perform a certain task (readiness level), that is R1. 3

4 Style 2 (S2): Coaching style is appropriated for people who have commitment. Coaching leaders define roles and tasks, but also explain the whys behind the guidance they provide. This style is appropriate for people with high motivation and low competence regarding a task (readiness level 2, i.e., R2). Style 3 (S3): Participative style is used if people have experience but lack confidence or motivation. Leaders use this specific style to involve the employees in the problem solving process (readiness level 3, i.e., R3). Style 4 (S4): Delegation style is for people who have both competence and commitment (i.e., R4). At this stage, people are capable and willing to work on a project by themselves with little supervision or support. When a leader delegates his/her intervention is at two levels: (1) defining the goals; and (2) controlling outputs. 4

5 3) Research Objectives & Data The research objectives were defined as two: first, to identify the most representative leadership style in each country with the Leadership Style Analysis questionnaire; secondly, to identify over and under leadership tendencies in each country. The data collected and used for this leadership style compared study was based on surveys administrated at Dynargie seminars, on leaders and their employees distributed in seven countries: Brazil, Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. We collected 1853 questionnaires along the seven referred countries, in a timeline stretching from 1998 to ) Methodology According to the data collected we applied a quantitative methodology based on criteria. The criterion distinguishes our universe of 1853 surveys and the validated 1650 that represent our work sample. In fact, valid surveys were the ones that, simultaneously, contained both Self and Others analysis. This criteria was adopted in order to standardize the sample, due to fact that the missing values would distort the analysis results. Average and global frequency were the central tendency measure applied to extract meaning from the data. 5) Results a. Leadership Style Analysis CZ 23% 29% 18% BR 20% 32% 17% CH 20% 30% 33% 17% ES 22% TUR 26% 29% 29% GR 25% 32% 29% 15% PT 23% 30% Dy 23% 30% S1 S2 S3 S4 Graphic 1 Leadership Style Analysis 5

6 Analyzing the global mean of values, S2 (30%) and S3 () are the most representative leadership styles, which reflects a global tendency to prioritize relationship focus over task focus. These two leadership styles represent 61% of the leader s time. From the four styles analyzed, those are the ones more time consuming for the leader. On the other hand, Delegation is the leadership style that leaders use less in all countries. My Ideas / His-Her Ideas My Ideas His / Her Ideas CZ BR CH ES TUR GR PT Dy 51% 51% 50% 54% 55% 56% 54% 54% 49% 49% 50% 46% 45% 44% 46% 46% Graphic 2 My Ideas / His-her Ideas Dynargie surveys also allow to see how do leaders find a balance between My Ideas and His /Her Ideas. The formula is quite simple: My Ideas represents the sum of Style 1 and Style 2, and His / Her Ideas, consequently are the sum of Style 3 and Style 4. Graphic 2 provide data that is easy to analyze: leaders impose more often their ideas to their employees instead of listening to their ideas. The only exceptions are: Brazil, Czech Republic and Switzerland, with a rigorous balance between the two approaches. 6

7 b. Over and Under Leadership Over and Under R 4 R 3 R 2 R 1 S 1 S 2 S3 S4 Graphic 3 Over and Under Leadership Over leadership happens when a leader uses style where My Ideas prevail (S1, S2) in a scenario where employees have high competences, leaving no space to grow with probable loss of motivation. On the other hand, Under leadership happens when a leader uses styles that give space to Others Ideas in a scenario where employees have low competence. Lack of support feeling is a fact as well as potential helplessness feeling. Graphic 3 shows the logic of calculation for over and under leadership. Relative frequency assumes the trend over or under leadership if the result is bigger than 50% of the sample. The tendency measure shows that leaders and employees have different perceptions about leader s approach in terms of over vs. under leadership. Taking into account Graphic 4 we found a global tendency of Over leadership in which Self analysis is confirmed and intensified by Others analysis. This last fact reveals a dissonance in terms of leadership perception. i. Global Frequency Under - Others Under - Self 8% 13% Over - Others 57% Over - Self 37% Graphic 4 Global Frequencies (%) 7

8 Analyzing Under Leadership, by default, leaders score themselves lower than employees (8% vs. 13%); Over Leadership, by default, shows that leaders score themselves lower, as well (37% vs. 57%). Over leadership is an ordinary phenomenon on our sample, in global terms, i.e., both in leader and employee s perception. The reality of each country shows some interesting case studies in terms of over and under of leadership. Over Leadership analysis 83% 65% 43% 73% 47% 68% 65% 46% 63% 51% 25% 27% 15% 24% PT GR TUR ES CH BR CZ Others Self Graphic 5 Over Leadership per country Spain has the highest difference between the perception of the Self (25%) and the Others analysis (65%). For the Spanish leader, his/her behavior doesn t show excessive directivity, but compared to his/her followers the situation is quite different. The same is applicable to the Turkish and Czech scenario, notwithstanding the fact that both leaders and followers are aware of the smaller gap that exists between the two perceptions. Concerning Turkey, we find the highest perception of over leadership by employees: 83% of the situations where they feel competent, they are lead with styles where the leader s ideas prevail (S1, S2). Portugal and Greece have similar results in terms of gap perception from the Self and Others. The following graphic is related with the under leadership by country. 8

9 Under Leadership analysis 35% 22% 20% 12% 0% 10% 10% 11% 7% 14% 20% 1% PT GR TUR ES CH BR CZ Self Others Graphic 6 Under Leadership per country According to the results, no country has under leadership as a dominant approach. Nevertheless, there are three relevant situations: a) Greece presents values close to zero, both on Self (1%) and Others analysis (7%), which means a strong presence of leader s ideas; b) Brazil, which is the country with higher values, and finally, c) Czech Republic leaders, analyzed by Others, confirm under leadership with 0%, even though leaders perception of under leadership is. In conclusion, employees from all the studied countries (excluding Switzerland and Brazil) are claiming for a more thorough readiness analysis conducted by leaders when a specific task is given to them. At this stage it is important to make an individual analysis of each country, according to the objectives proposed at the beginning of this investigation: - Brazil dominant leadership styles are S2 () and S3 (32%): focus on consensus and relationship. There s a relative balance between directive (51%) and participative behavior (49%), and there is neither under nor over leadership found on the Brazilian results. - Greece dominant leadership style is S2 (32%), leaders focus on giving directions, objectives and standards to develop employer s competencies. Greek leaders use more often their ideas (56%), the highest percentage of all countries; have the lowest percentage of under leadership, and a considerable gap between self (47%) and others perception (65%). 9

10 - Portugal dominant leadership style is S2 (), close to Greece. Following the Mediterranean tendency, Portuguese analysed leaders use more My Ideas (54%). And there is also, in terms of over leadership, a considerable gap between Self (43%) and Others perception (65%). - Spain main styles are S2 () and S3 (). Spanish leaders use more often My Ideas (54%). In terms of over leadership, Spain results present the highest dissonance between self analysis (25%) and others analysis (65%). - Leaders from Switzerland use more often S3 (33%), which means a leadership profile focused on supporting and listening to people s ideas and suggestions, sharing responsibility. The results show an absolute balance between My Ideas (50%) and His / Her Ideas (50%). Swiss leaders have neither over nor under leadership. - Turkey main styles are S2 (29%) and S3 (29%). However, S1 has also a significant value (26%) the highest of all countries. It means there is a tendency of leadership consensus and relationship, but also a rigorous setting of objectives, priorities and plans. Turkish leaders are often directive, using more My Ideas (55%). Turkish leaders have an unequivocal tendency for over leadership, which is confirmed by self analysis (68%) and other analysis (83%) who both confirm this approach. - Finally, Czech Republic dominant style is S3 (), as well as the Swiss reality. Basically, leaders often share responsibility. Also similar to Brazil is the fact that there s a relative balance between directive (51%) and participative leadership style (49%). Czech leaders also have a tendency for over leadership. As the general country trend, there s a gap between self analysis (51%) and other analysis (63%). 10

11 Final statements Finalizing this Executive Summary, it is important to sum up the main trends of the three dimensions analyzed: - Leadership Styles The results presented a double trend: Coaching (S2) and Participative (S3) are the most recurring styles, as they represent 61% of time consumed by leaders; the mean varies by country between 29% and 32% for both styles. - My Ideas vs. Others Ideas My Ideas overcome Others Ideas. Leaders tend to privilege more often their own ideas, contrasting with their followers insights. - Over & Under Leadership Over leadership is a common pattern taking into account the countries studied, excepting Brazil, Czech Republic and Switzerland. Employees analysis show that they are more sensitive to situations of both over and under leadership, rating these two extreme leadership approaches higher than their leaders (who rate their leading performance lower regarding these two criteria). Contact us DYNARGIE Human Side of Business Website LinkedIn: dynargie@dynargie.com 11