The human side of leadership

The Hay-McBer analysis of leadership styles has been cropping up in educational leadership for a good few years. I first encountered it in the early 2000s and it is regularly encountered on current leadership programs. It aims to break leadership styles into 6 categories and analyses the way in which leaders operate according to their predominant leadership style. The 6 leadership types (according to Hay McBer) are:

• Coercive
• Authoritative
• Affiliative
• Democratic
• Pacesetting
• Coaching

The issue that I have with this is that it is all about the leader and not the leadership relationship. It is acknowledged that most leaders will display all of these at some time or another but nevertheless I believe that it is wrong to pigeon-hole leaders. At best it is overly simplistic and naively reductionist and at worst it absolves the leader from the responsibility of establishing quality relationships. “I am an authoritative leader so deal with it” seems to be the attitude. It is then the responsibility of those being led to adapt to the leader, which is wrong!

Educational leadership has a great deal to learn from leadership in the wider world of business but education has a unique set of employees, employees who are all very different. I would sooner the see a different Hay McBer analysis, where the predominant characteristic of the employee comes first. I would assert that a school is most successful when it is inclusive with its staff. No-one should feel excluded from the life of the school but if leaders feel that they can legitimise a certain way of leading because they fit the category then I fear that employees will be excluded.

So here is my radical proposal. Leaders, don’t categorise yourself at all. Embrace all leadership styles and always seek to gain greater inter-personal skills. To work out how many leadership styles you actually need apply “Whalley’s law of leadership styles” which states “the minimum number of leadership styles needed is calculated by taking the number of those you lead and multiplying it by 2”. Why the “2”? Well you need a different style for when your employee is having a good day and when they are having a bad day! You may even want to multiply by 2 again to allow you to recognise that your leadership style with any individual is determined by your state of mind as well.

Leadership is a human process based on unique interactions. Put your employees first (not yourself) and remember they are all individuals. Leadership is about relationships and if you cannot form meaningful relationships you may make a great manager but you will struggle with leadership. You may actually think you’re a great leader but what would your staff say. Have you actually got genuine authority or are you exercising power (see earlier post HERE)?

I have learned that every member of staff deserves personalised leadership if you invest in them they will invest in you and the school.  

Addition to blog (13 Sept 2016)
What could you do practically to make this happen? I reckon you could conduct 2 audits, a personal one, and one for those you lead. What are your characteristics, values, strengths and weaknesses that make you a good leader? Now do a similar thing for your team, explicitly identifying key characteristics. Given that I assert that leadership is a relationship-centred human activity, understanding personalities (including your own) must be at the heart of our activities. 

On a personal level I have found that I have developed significantly over my leadership career, my characteristics have changed (some radically). In addition the teams I have led have all been different and so my skill-set has had to adapt to meet the needs of the team. Rather than waiting for this to happen I have actively looked at my teams and worked out how their personalities require me to lead.