Reflections on Leading Solidaridad Southern Africa - Part 2

Thirteen years ago, in June 2011, I sat in a leadership course delivered by Prof. Kurt April expected a clear set of do's and don'ts on leadership—a playbook, so to speak. However, I was wrong on three accounts.

First, instead of an instruction manual, Kurt presented us with a framework of 12 leadership issues, including accountability, comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty, and compassion. Second, rather than providing a full textbook on these issues, Kurt directed us to explore the academic literature, delving into debates on concepts like locus of control, communication and listening. The most challenging part (third part) was the introspection required, as Kurt believed that leadership growth is a self-reflective journey into issues like transference, emotional maturity, belonging, connectedness, and relationships. I passed the course, but if Kurt reads this article, he might suggest I need a refresher in his upcoming Advanced Leadership elective.

Understanding Leadership Styles

I was reminded of Kurt's course while traveling across the Southern Province of Zambia with Sheila Garakara , our Country Manager for Zambia. This was in December 2023, a week before my holiday. Sheila, working on an academic assignment on leadership, decided to interview me as an example of a leader undergoing transition. When she asked, "What is your leadership style?" I found myself stumped. Sheila, adept at understanding challenges, helped me with a short explanation of the leadership framework she had learned in her postgraduate classes. This framework, which I later saw posted by Kevin Box🚀 , suggests ten types of competent leaders:

1. Visionary Leader
2. Transactional Leader
3. Transformational Leader
4. Servant Leader
5. Autocratic Leader
6. Democratic Leader
7. Laissez-Faire Leader
8. Situational Leader
9. Charismatic Leader
10. Coaching Leader

Sheila's question forced me to choose one style or be forever unsure. We debated the framework, and she completed her assignment with a commendable score. For me, the lesson continued as I delved into academic literature to understand the conceptual underpinnings of the framework. One paper linked these styles to the Big Five personality archetypes, suggesting that a leader with certain traits would gravitate toward at least three styles. This was comforting, as I could identify with seven of the ten styles. Here are three new insights I gained from my introspection:

Introspection 1: The Value of Different Leadership Styles

Embracing Diverse Leadership Styles:

There are at least ten effective leadership styles. I have always struggled with autocratic leadership and doubted the long-term viability of laissez-faire leadership. I also believed servant leadership was the gold standard. Over the past year, I learned that autocratic leaders could sometimes be more effective than servant leaders. While servant leadership has virtues, autocratic leadership provides clear, immediate decisions and maintains order in situations where it might falter. Thus, I now respect the effectiveness of autocratic leaders in specific contexts.

Introspection 2: Situational Leadership

Different situations require different leadership styles. There's a saying: to a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. While I once saw servant leadership as the ultimate style, I realized it isn't always suitable. Sometimes, immediate decisions and order are necessary. I've observed that I employ different leadership styles depending on the situation and the people involved, sometimes even within the same hour. This is the paradox of leadership: we may prefer a certain style, but we must learn and use other styles as the situation dictates. If Sheila and I debate again, I'll argue that I am a Situational Leader, adapting my style as needed.

Introspection 3: Diversifying Leadership Styles in Teams:

Organizations benefit from diverse leadership styles within their teams. While transformational and charismatic leaders are often celebrated, and coaching leaders are admired, autocratic leaders are frequently disliked. However, I realized that my natural bias towards certain styles makes me weaker in others. This is acceptable as long as my team includes executives, middle managers, and field staff with a range of leadership styles. An organization where servant and autocratic leaders can debate and choose the appropriate style for each situation is stronger than one that treats every problem as a nail.

Bonus Introspection: Developing Leadership Skills Across the Organization

Leadership is situational, so while I might instruct a driver not to cross solid lines on the road, I recognize that the driver leads when we're on the road. Similarly, if there's a flood in the office, the amenities manager takes charge. Leaders must sometimes follow, adhering to the leadership style best suited for the situation. Therefore, we must teach leadership skills across the organization. During field visits, a field officer, who is also a competent leader, guides us. Our staff, especially those leading our clients—the farmers—are our most valuable asset.

Our staff are indeed our greatest assets. This idea is often repeated, but it deserves deeper reflection. In my next article, I might explore whether this notion extends beyond a mantra. As you can see, I find contradictions more intriguing than accepted wisdom.

By sharing these insights, I hope to engage you in reflecting on your leadership journey and the diverse styles that contribute to effective leadership.