Leadership With An Attitude
Leadership with an attitude that sees the people involved, without respect and involvement, solely as a production factor for work, will only work in the long term with the weakest employees who have no alternative on the market, or who believe they have no alternative. Leadership is a service, both for the company represented and for the employees led. On the one hand, the person responsible for management represents the entrepreneur on the site, with the purpose of contributing to the achievement of the company's objectives by managing the employees. In this respect, leadership means "setting people in motion in a targeted manner".
On the other hand, the manager has the responsibility to support the employees in achieving their personal goals and to represent the legitimate interests of the employees. If we can support a partner in achieving what he defines as success, then we no longer need to "set employees in motion", but rather the movement comes from the employee's own drive.
This is the easiest way to "motivate" - achieving the company's goals becomes the way to achieve one's own goals. As managers we need authority. This term originated from "Auctoritas", a Roman concept of value that can be described as "Dignity", "Reputation" and "Influence". In the broadest sense, authority is a social positioning that leads other people to orient themselves by this role model (in the worst case: example) and its values and rules.
The 3 sources of authority:
- Professional authority, fed by specific expertise.
- Hierarchical authority, based solely on the fact that someone else has been put in front (i.e. "put in front of the nose"), who is superior in the hierarchical position and has more "power" in the sense of more extensive decision-making powers.
- Personal authority, based on the personal integrity and credibility of the person.
If we wanted to base our authority as a manager on our professional competence, this would lead to a huge, permanent learning effort for the managers, even if it was "only" a matter of keeping up to date in all areas.
Furthermore, they have to know more in every area than the employees entrusted with the task. In addition, it means that we incapacitate our employees, take away their responsibility and degrade them to mere vicarious agents. Ultimately, this effort would even be a huge investment of time in demotivating the employees.
A second source of authority - the hierarchical authority - leads to a permanent primacy of the opinion of the person with a higher pay when used intensively. In this context, exchange of opinions means that the employees come to their seniors with their opinions and come out with the opinion of the boss.
In both cases: Those, who bet on it, will most likely lose the most committed employees who will not accept this degradation to tentacles of the "boss" octopus permanently. Additionally, the "octopus arms" are trained in not using their head and not working independently. If the boss is on vacation, many processes that are out of the routine are stuck. The employees, who then stay on longer, are those who have already quit inwardly, those who would like to have a quiet ball at the expense of their boss or who are simply too weak to get a job somewhere else.
The only real "power" we have over our employees is the power they lend us. If trust in the meaningfulness and usefulness of leadership is damaged, this loan can be terminated unilaterally at short notice, leaving us "powerless". The best ones switch to competition, others go into internal self-retirement and try to seem as comfortably employed as possible for the remaining years. And every day it is not the marmot that greets us, but the lived idea of convenience as a reaction to an inadequate service offered by us.
Situational management is a mix of the authoritarian, cooperative and "laissez-faire" management style. What are the characteristics of the different management styles, where are their advantages and disadvantages and which style is useful in which situations?
Authoritarian, directive management: management through instructions, order, quasi "by the order of the Mufti". No involvement of the employee in goal finding and decision making, the procedure, solution finding and selection. In authoritarian management, exchange of opinions means that the employees come to the boss with their own opinions or no opinions at all and leave the office with the boss's opinion.