Authoritarian Leadership

by | Oct 17, 2012 | Research

Yesterday’s post looked at some of the implications of Kurt Lewin’s psychological research. Another study he did in 1939 set out to identify different styles of leadership. To look at different styles he studied a group of schoolchildren. The kids were broken up into three groups, each with a different type of leader, one being authoritarian, another democratic, and the last, delegative. To conduct the research, he assigned each of the groups an arts and crafts project and he observed the results.

The first group operated at the hands of an authoritative leader, one who provided clear expectations of who, what, where, when, why, and how a task needed to be performed. This type of leader typically dictates policies and procedures as well as goals. Acting often as a micromanager, this type of boss directs and controls all activities without meaningful participation by other members of the team.

Lewin’s research found that decision making was much less creative under authoritarian leadership.

This isn’t all bad. If you look back at Lewin’s earlier work that postulated that behaviour was a function of the person in the environment. There are a few environments where this type of leadership is sorely needed. Where there is little time for decision making, as in a crisis situation, an authoritarian leader will thrive. If as well, there is an inexperienced team, this type of leadership is a requisite function for success.

But in the long run, in a stable and experienced environment, an authoritarian leader will fail to deliver upon the potential of the organization.

 

Kurt Lewin on Behaviour

by | Oct 16, 2012 | Leaders, Research

Kurt Lewin, who died in 1947, was one of the pioneers of social, organizational and applied psychology. He was one of the first people to study group dynamics and organizational development. What is most interesting about his work is his study of leadership. If you’ve ever worked for a mercurial leader, one whose mood you couldn’t predict, then Kurt’s work goes a long way to explain that person’s behaviour.

According to Lewin, behaviour is a function of the person in their environment. What this means to say is that if you take one person in one environment it is likely that he or she will behave differently in a different environment. This has a few implications at work:

  • A boss you like at one workplace isn’t necessarily going to be the same boss at the next workplace and that following him or her to a new workplace might be an error.
  • If also means that a person who is successful in one environment isn’t necessarily going to be successful in another.
  • In addition, if an environment changes, you may have to look for a different leader, one who can function more effectively in the new environment.

If you’re finding that your behaviour at work is changing (for the worse) then you may be better off finding a new environment that fits your behaviour style better. Ask yourself; In which environments are you successful and in which ones do you fail? Don’t just search for the right job, search as well for the right environment.

 

 

Using SWOT to Develop Strategy

by | Oct 11, 2012 | Management

Developing a strategy for a business is very simple when you use SWOT and combine it with the concepts of Quality, Cost and Speed.

The first step is to figure out your Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for each of the three dimensions of Quality, Cost and Speed. For example:

  • In terms of quality you may have a greater reliability than your competitor but less product choice. There may also be a new entrant to the market with newer technology going after a new market segment. Each of these is an element of SWOT.
  • In terms of cost, you may have a more expensive product that is threatened by newer methods of production which could serve to make your competitor cheaper.
  • Finally, for speed, you may have slower delivery times due to a slower manufacturing cycle time.

Figuring out strategy from SWOT would then have you do the following:

Very simply to develop strategy, you would maximize strengths, exploit opportunities, minimize weaknesses, and get rid of threats. In our simple example you might want to:

  • Put in a new assembly line to lower costs of production and increase speed of delivery.
  • Use the newer technology on that assembly line both to exploit new markets and broaden your product offering.

The hard part isn’t developing a strategy to beat the competition, it is figuring out what the problem really is in the first place.

Focus on Strengths

by | Oct 4, 2012 | Literature Review

While Sam Walton was a great believer in identifying weaknesses, he didn’t focus on them. Yesterday’s blog was not meant to advocate a focus on weaknesses, just to say that ignoring them is not productive. In fact, what you want to focus on are strengths.

The book, Strengths Finder by Tom Rath lays out the findings from some great research done by the Gallup organization on employee engagement.

Make today a Strengths day. Go out and compliment a few people today.