A client sent me a link to this article yesterday following a really interesting leader team discussion about situational leadership.
My favourite version of the situational leadership model (which I learnt in university and have never been able to find online) shows two axes - the available time of the leader and the experience level of the employee - slightly different from the version below. What is glaringly obvious in this model is that developing the experience of employees can only happen through coaching (only possibility in an unordered world) or a lot of self-learning from extremely clear guidelines (assuming an ordered world where problems are repetitive).
What is the difference between the kind of coaching involvement which this model suggests and the micro-management which the Google article highlights as a destructive form of leadership?
The three drivers of engagement: intention, connection and action determine the difference. (Learn more about these drivers)
Micro-managers are controlling because they are afraid of negative consequences for themselves, whereas effectively engaged leaders are involved because their intention is to succeed along with employees and the organisation.
Micro-managers are controlling because they don't know how to or don't want to connect with others as diverse equals, whereas effectively engaged leaders live out the value they see in others, strive to complement them and engage their strengths for mutual and organisational benefit.
Micro-managers are controlling because they don't truly understand the synergistic action mutual leadership whereas effectively engaged leaders are involved because they know the role they must play to support the successful action and development of their team mates.
Watch out for new posts coming soon about Conscious Business Culture.