In one of my previous posts I already presented a term leadership models. In terms of describing conduct in practice, we can say they are approaches to leadership. Another use is to describe a way of thinking about leadership and in this instance we can call them philosophies of leadership.
What I am gradually moving towards now are some specific models: contemporary or modern leadership models. And right away, there is a first important point I want to emphasise: contemporary models are formed with a prerequisite that a given company, public institution, or any other organisation we deal with has been constructed in a way theory supposes they should be constructed. Let’s take a look at what this means.
An appropriate setting
Management and organisation are fields of knowledge that deal with the question of how a group of people should work together to be efficient and to be successful. A summation will tell you, that this field of science deals with a functioning of 1) a group of people, 2) when this group is working together in line of some sort of common pursuit. 3) To concern yourself with efficiency means to make sure your are doing things in a right way, and 4) achieving success means to make sure you are doing the right things.
We already made a short stop at a topic of management process (see Leader versus Manager post for more). In its first phase named A planning phase, a central task for planning personnel is to define an identity of an organisation. This identity is essentially built of three organisational statements.
- Defining a reason for existence. Clearing out why an organisation (as a group of people working towards a common goal) exists is what constitutes a so-called mission statement. In everyday use it is a most vital base for leaders to build commitment and motivation.
- Defining a desired future. Clearing out what an organisation (same meaning) wants to build towards and where it wants to come to is what constitutes a so-called vision statement. This is a most vital base for creating alignment (what is commonly referred to as “rowing in the same direction”).
- Defining a chosen path (to a desired future). Clearing out the values, the strengths, and also the milestones is what tells about the way we will work in and constitutes a strategy. This last of the three most fundamental pieces of identity.
Identity (the whole trinity of organisation’s fundamentals) needs to be articulated, so it can be talked about and thus shared among the members of an organisation (same meaning). Just with a short notice, there is a fourth piece that is not part of the core identity, but is a close upgrade of it. Namely, the organisation – this time signifying how the roles are defined and what the system of work is (this as well has to be understood in a common way for a group of people to work together well).
A leap from traditional …
Now, after presenting you the identity an organisation needs to be efficient and successful, let’s solidify that understanding with a quick look into a traditional shape and functioning of organisations.
You may have heard a lot about modern trends of inclusion and empowerment. Well, in a traditional entity, an identity remains unarticulated, unshared, and is kept with the boss or the leading few. This creates a context where we have a boss on one hand and workers on the other. And between them exists a so-called transactional relationship. In short, this sort of relationship means that a worker creates value for an employer, and in return an employer pays for that value with what we call wage or salary.
In such setting, work is meant to realise boss’s mission and vision, and the employees are hired and paid for to actually do it. There is no real shared commitment, so strong systems of control are put in place, and there is strong emphasis on reward and punishment system to guide everyone towards fulfilling boss’s vision. I am sure you can recognise the sense of autocratic leadership and centralisation of decision-making (and rewards or profits) on boss or a wider management team.
… to contemporary
As already indicated, such setting turned out to be inefficient and unsuccessful. Organisations that acted differently, got themselves to better results. In a new setting, a management team presupposes a responsibility to define and articulate an identity through developed trinity of statements. And a leadership team takes on responsibility to communicate that identity to members throughout the organisation. Such revised setting opened way to a transformed way of how organisations function.
In such setting, it is possible for a wider group of members to make decisions, without losing the utmost crucial and needed alignment of actions. So, a wider group of people can spot and solve problems, and co-create a shape of an organisation.
You might notice, that in such setting, there is no natural need for traditional control, but rather for facilitation with valuable information and other resources necessary for quality work. When leaders and followers share purpose of their work and want the same thing, there is a partnership formed and between them exists what we call a transformational relationship.
Conclusion
When talking about new leadership models, what we should bare in mind, is that they hold a prerequisite of a modern-way functioning of an organisation. A modern leader cannot do his or her work without a well-defined identity of an organisation, because it is a crucial ingredient of performed everyday tasks.
Paradim 