Fast Company recently posted an article about “New Unconventional Leadership Styles.” The author makes the case that these styles are intentional, but I think it's difficult to learn a particular style if you don’t already have a natural leaning that way.
Director of the MIT Leadership Center Deborah Ancon says, "It’s no longer just about your emotional intelligence. It’s about your ability to understand complexities, solve problems, and get things done" — no matter what leadership style is used.
I don’t see how this is “new.” Emotional Intelligence (EI) is necessary but not sufficient enough to be a good leader. "EI" has been a buzz word and an important training area over the past decade, but a good leader has to be well versed in more than one style. A baseball pitcher wouldn't have only one pitch, and a football offense wouldn't have only one play — a well-executed play may work for a while, but you need to adapt your style to the situation.
The author of the article talks of pros and cons, and I generally agree with her views. A leader must be able use different styles when the situation requires it. Recognizing which style is needed (Emotional Intelligence) and executing the style correctly in the moment is the key to success.
I would recommend displaying a predominate style that sets the tone and culture of the group. This way, the group knows what to expect from the leader – certainty and significance leads to empowerment and productivity. A leader may be required to break from his normal style to resolve daily situations, but try to stay with the primary style if possible.
I wholeheartedly believe in Servant Leadership. This was something I learned from my Fraternity in college, and I've refined it through the teachings of Stephen Covey and Ken Blanchard. This is not a “new” concept. I’ve employed it since the early to mid-90s and I’ve been presenting on turning the top-down paradigm on its head since 2004. I believe Servant Leadership should be a leader's primary style — except in companies of less than 10-20 employees where a more dominant style may be needed to beat the odds of small company failure. (These companies don’t typically have the luxury of time to allow the employee to figure it out – the leader/owner tends to need to short-cut the time to decision, using his or her knowledge and experience to make the right call.)
The last two styles in the article, Emotionally transparent and Boss as friend/peer, may be trendy and may be desired by the group, but caution should be exercised.
Studies have shown that Millennials, more than any other generation, want transparency. Transparency has the potential to build trust if the leader is secure enough to do it on a regular basis. But it can also backfire in times of uncertainty, when transparency may be needed more — the leader may feel uncomfortable being exposed in a situation that does not show him in the best light.
Someone with high emotional intelligence will be self-aware, but also be adept at self-regulation. If one is regulating emotions, how is that transparent? When I have seen emotional transparency, it has not been in good situations and has typically not been helpful to the productivity and well-being of the employees. While I agree with Transparency, emotional transparency is desired for leaders WITHOUT high self-regulation.
When someone becomes a leader for the first time, the Boss as friend/peer is a common style. There is always a desire for the new boss and the former peer to maintain the tight relationship they once had. The peer/friend relationship typically remains until the new boss has to tell the former peer that his work performance or direction needs to change. This can be the first awkward moment, and the new boss may need help from a superior to get through this situation. This situation is inevitable in the maturing process of a new manager/leader. As a leader develops, she will know how to handle the friend/boss relationship. It requires a recognition by both that the boss needs to be the boss at times.
So while these “new” leadership styles may get some press today, they have been around for a while. The company culture may dictate the preferred style (or for a small company, the leader’s style sets the culture). But there should be no allusion that the preferred style will be the only style. The leader needs to forewarn the group that other styles will be used in unusual situations. When the group sees other styles, the emotionally aware people will recognize that they may need to at least temporarily change their work style to resolve the situation. Even the best places to work will have times when there will be a wake-up call and change will be needed.
Kudos to the author for bringing these leadership styles to light and stating the pros and cons. I think the article about trendy leadership styles is misleading. I believe that people have a natural/preferred style and it can work for them. If that person can set the company culture, then staying in the style with situational adaptations can be fantastic and product great results. But if the person is at a larger organization, the leader will need support from above to make it work long-term.