• /
    • Archives / February 2010

Archives For February 2010

0102 | Daniel Pink

David Burkus —  February 26, 2010

Daniel Pink is the author of several New York Times best-selling books including his new release, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. In Drive, Dan explores new research that suggests that our traditional ideas about motivation may be way off.

0:00 Introduction

1:19 What is motivation 3.0?

3:50 Talk to us about some of the research you explore in the book.

6:40 What advice can you give organizational leaders on how to use this research?

10:20 How do these findings apply to sales organizations?

17:30 What is emotionally intelligent signage?

21:30 What are you reading?

Referenced Resources:

Drive – Dan Pink

Predictably Irrational – Dan Ariely

Emotionally Intelligent Signage

Nothing to Envy – Barbara Demick

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

In Leadership , , ,
permalink

Situational Leadership Theory

David Burkus —  February 25, 2010

If you haven’t noticed it yet, most leadership theories build on the previous one. In the same manner, situational leadership theory builds upon contingency theory. Where contingency theory asserts that certain leaders work best in certain environments because of their leadership style, situational leadership theory argues that any leader can work best in any environment by changing their style accordingly.

Situational leadership defines four leadership styles: S1 (high-directive but low-supportive), S2 (high-directive and high-supportive), S3 (low-directive but high supportive) and S4 (low-directive and low-supportive). Developed by Hersey & Blanchard, the theory’s model (called Situational Leadership II or SLII) promotes a particular leadership style depending upon the development level of the follower: D1 (low-competence but high-commitment), D2 (moderate-competence but low-commitment), D3 (moderate-competence but no commitment) and D4 (high-competence and high-commitment). Effective leadership is a matter of assessing the development level of a follower and acting in the correlating leadership style to elicit the best response from followers (D1s respond to S1, D2s respond to S1, and so on).

Useful Lies

In the time since its inception, situational leadership II has become a standard model for use in training managers and leaders. The situational approach is effective and provides a prescription for leadership success rather than merely describing why certain leaders work in certain situations. In this way, situational leadership theory further eroded the notion of “one best way” of leadership. Despite a broad base of support from trainers and consultants, situational leadership theory lacks a significant body of research-based support. While situational leadership considers the followers in determining leadership style, it does so on a one-on-one basis and does not provide guidelines on how to use the model when leading group.

In Leadership , , , ,
permalink

Book Review: Strategy Safari

David Burkus —  February 23, 2010

Leadership requires strategy.

But there is far more to strategy than just announcing where an organization is headed. The authors of Strategy Safari use the analogy of a syringe to explain this misconception. Where leaders believe it is solely their responsibility to fill a syringe with deliberate strategy and then inject it into the followers. What causes this misconception? Another analogy. The authors liken understanding all element of strategy to blind men touching an elephant and trying to describe the whole creature. Each individual section is not the whole.

To that end, the authors seek to explore the ten common schools of strategy:

  1. The Design School views strategy formation as a process of conception.
  2. The Planning School views as a formal process, which follows a rigorous set of steps from analysis of the situation to the development and exploration of various alternative scenarios.
  3. The Positioning School views strategy formation as an analytical process placing the business within the context of its industry.
  4. The Entrepreneurial School views strategy formation as a visionary process, taking place solely within the mind of the leader.
  5. The Cognitive School views strategy formation as a mental process, and analyzes how people perceive patterns and process information.
  6. The Learning School views strategy formation as an emergent process of trial and error.
  7. The Power School views strategy formation as a process of negotiation between power holders within the company.
  8. The Cultural School views strategy formation as a collective process involving various groups and departments within the company.
  9. The Environmental School views strategy formation as a reactive process, responding to the challenges imposed by the external environment.
  10. The Configuration School views strategy formation as a process of transforming the organization from one type of decision-making structure into another.

The authors present the strengths and weaknesses of all ten schools, though they reveal and confess their favoritism toward the Learning School. Moreover, they assert the need to understand all ten schools. Just as the blind men feeling the elephant, no school of thought describes strategy in its entirety. Strategy Safari presents itself somewhere in between a textbook and a casual business book, enlightening yet entertaining to read. Overall, Strategy Safari is required reading for all strategic leaders.

In Leadership , ,
permalink

Contingency Theory

David Burkus —  February 18, 2010

Maybe leadership isn’t about who you are, what skills you have or how you act. Maybe what defines effective leadership is about more than just you. This inquisitive contemplation brought forth the idea of Contingency theory, and moved the field of leadership theory forward by another drastic step.

Developed by Fielder, Contingency theory examines the leader in conjunction with the situation the leader is in. In essence, it argues that effective leadership is contingent upon a match between the leaders style and the work situation. Leadership style is assessed using a measure called the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. This scale divides leaders into task motivated (low LPC), socio-independent (middle LPC) and relationship motivated.

Three different variables provide as means for situational measurement: leader-member relations, task structure (defined or undefined tasks) and position power (how much power does the leader have). When considered together, these variables suggest a style of leadership that has the best chance of success. Generally, low LPCs are found effective in extreme combinations with high LPCs effective in moderate situations.

Useful Lies

Contingency theory is easily measurable, and as a result has a considerable amount of research supporting it. As mentioned, it represents the first theory to consider more than just attributes leaders but also the situation leaders can find themselves in. While it is supported by substantial research, an adequate explain of why it works has yet to be discovered. Contingency theory is merely predictive. It can predict which leaders will be effective in what situations but cannot be use to make leaders in unfavorable situations more effective.

In Leadership , , ,
permalink

Book Review: The Starfish and the Spider

David Burkus —  February 16, 2010

Why is the greatest military in the history of the world still fighting a war against a network of terrorists who can barely communicate from cave to cave? Why can’t a team of the highest-priced lawyers stop teenagers from downloading free music via peer-to-peer software? In The Starfish and the Spider, Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom explain that it’s because spiders don’t know how to defeat starfish.

The Spiders are the standard, top down hierarchal organization. Their structure consists of a leader with several subordinates, each of whom also have subordinates. This type of structure is a very top down approach to organizing leadership. Control & decision-making are contained in one part of the spiders’ body: its head. It’s the head that is responsible for all decisions. For example, if the spider wants to move somewhere, its head notifies its legs of where they’re going and they’re off. If the spider’s head becomes injured or severed from its body, the spider will die.

Starfish, on the other hand, is an example of system where decision-making is distributed throughout the entire organization. Control and decision-making are distributed across the entire body. If the starfish wants to move somewhere, each individual leg makes the decision to move. If the leg of a starfish were to become severed, that starfish would simply grow a new leg. The severed leg will, in turn, grow into an entirely new starfish.

Spider organizations are centralized and rely on visible and controlling leaders. Starfish organizations are decentralized and do not rely on one specific leader. What happens when a spider fights a starfish? The spider will fight it like a spider. It will severe a limb of the starfish, and the starfish will grow another. The cycle will continue until a) the spider loses from fatigue or b) the starfish ceases to be a starfish (stops being leaderless).

Typically, reviews on this site tend to focus on leadership theory. However, Brafman and Beckstrom lay a foundation for a new field: leaderless theory. As society becomes more connected, leaderless organizations are becoming more coming. The Starfish and the Spider makes a compelling case that it is time for us to study them for organizations to gain the insight to adapt and become more starfish like. The starfish and the spiders are battling, and the starfish are winning convincingly.

In Leadership , ,
permalink