Leadership in organizations is dictated and determined according to a variety of reasons and factors including personality, cultural, and country and regional aspects.

Among the various factors, the cultural dimension of leadership is often not highlighted as it is taken as a given. However, with globalization and the advent of tighter integration and interconnectedness, there is a need to study how leadership is determined by cultural factors and the mediating role that cultural exchanges between the West and the East play out when determining how leaders behave.

This article discusses the cultural dimensions of leadership with specific emphasis on how the greater interactions between the leaders in the West and the East is playing out in the global arena and as far as organizational behavior is concerned. For instance, with globalization, leaders and managers in the east have learnt to adopt a more democratic style of leadership as opposed to the patriarchic and the authoritarian leadership that was hitherto practiced.

Further, leaders in the west have begun to understand that the way things are done in the east is radically different from the way they are done in the east and hence, they need to be cognizant of these differing approaches to management.

Leadership in the East and the West

The pioneering work of the Dutch psychologist, Geert Hofstede is often cited and quoted to emphasize the differences in leadership between the west and the east that are determined by cultural reasons.

For instance, culture plays a very important role in determining the leaders’ actions especially where the decision-making, attitudes towards diversity, and treatment of people down the hierarchies are concerned. It is the case that leaders in the east tend to be patriarchic and authoritarian in their decision-making styles as opposed to democratic and consensual in the west.

Further, leaders in the east tend to view diversity yet another aspect of business and the working culture in many organizations tends to be paternal and dictated by masculine behavior. In contrast, diversity is practiced actively in the west and the leaders in many western companies often do more than what is required by the law in these cases.

Next, the attitude towards those lower down in the hierarchy in the west is more accommodative and conciliatory whereas in the east, leaders at the top tend to view their subordinates according to strict classifications of seniority conditioned by cultural factors. These are some of the differences in leadership between the east and the west as presented by Hofstede in his work.

Globalization and Leadership: Homogeneity vs. Heterogeneity

Though most business literature talks about how leadership has become homogenous with the advent of globalization and the concomitant cultural exchange between the west and the east that has resulted in leaders in the east becoming western in their outlook, the oft neglected aspect is that some leaders in the east have turned inward as a result of their interaction with the west and have begun to become parochial and jingoistic in their approach. This is seen in the case of many manufacturing and primary sectors where leaders often rant against western values and how they corrupt the employees and hence, these leaders in the heavy manufacturing industries have instead started favoring regionalism and paternalism as well as resorting to jingoism and an attitude that is decidedly against further opening up of the economy.

Of course, this does not mean that the heterogeneity that results from globalization is the prevailing norm as many leaders in the east have modernized their companies and adopted western best practices.

Indeed, the proportion of leaders who have become western is greater than those who have turned inward and this is the trend in China and India. However, as the previous paragraph pointed out, there are many exceptions to this norm and hence, any professional or student of management has to be cognizant of both trends if he or she is to navigate the corporate minefield in their careers.

Conclusion

This article has discussed the differences in leadership between the east and the west that are due to cultural reasons. This article has also discussed how globalization has made leaders adopt western values and at the same time, has resulted in some leaders turning inward.

The point to be noted here is that leadership is a complex subject that is determined due to a host of reasons and the cultural aspect is a key component of how leaders behave. Therefore, it is our advice to future leaders and those starting their careers as well as those already working that one must determine one’s core values and then act accordingly.

If you are a person who is more likely to be influenced by the western paradigm, you must seek companies and organizations that are run according to western notions of management. On the contrary, if you are of a disposition where you believe that your native culture determines your actions, you must again seek employment in those organizations where the traditional values are emphasized.

In other words, one must find the organization one is comfortable with instead of being in conflict with the environment arising out of a clash between inner values and the values of the organization. This is the key take away that this article leaves you with as you are entering your career or if you are working, either you are resigned to your fate or enjoying your job to the fullest.

The continuum presents a range of action related to the degree of authority used by the manager and to the area of freedom available to non-managers in arriving at decisions.

A broad range of leadership styles have been depicted on the continuum between two extremes of autocratic and free rein (See figure 1). The left side shows a style where control is maintained by a manager and the right side shows the release of control. However, neither extreme is absolute and authority and freedom are never without their limitations.

The Tannenbaum and Schmidt continuum can be related to McGregor’s supposition of Theory X and Theory Y. Boss-centered leadership is towards theory X and subordinate-centered leadership is towards theory Y.

Figure 1: Continuum Leadership Behaviuor.

A manager is characterized according to degree of control that is maintained by him. According to this approach, four main styles of leadership have been identified:

• Tells: The manager identifies a problem, chooses a decision, and announces this to subordinates. The subordinates are not a party to the decision making process and the manager expects them to implement his decisions as soon as possible.

• Sells: The decision is chosen by the manager only but he understands that there will be some amount of resistance from those faced with the decision and therefore makes efforts to persuade them to accept it.

• Consults: Though the problem is identified by the manager, he does not take a final decision. The problem is presented to the subordinates and the solutions are suggested by the subordinates.

• Joins: The manager defines the limits within which the decision can be taken by the subordinates and then makes the final decision along with the subordinates.

According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt, if one has to make a choice of the leadership style which is practicable and desirable, then his answer will depend upon the following three factors:

• Forces in the Manager: The behavior of the leader is influenced by his personality, background, knowledge, and experience. These forces include:
  1. Value systems
  2. Confidence in subordinates
  3. Leadership inclinations
  4. Feelings of security in an uncertain situation
• Forces in the subordinate: The personality of the subordinates and their expectations from the leader influences their behavior. The factors include:
  1. Readiness to assume responsibility in decision-making
  2. Degree of tolerance for ambiguity
  3. Interest in the problem and feelings as to its importance
  4. Strength of the needs for independence
  5. Knowledge and experience to deal with the problem
  6. Understanding and identification with the goals of the organization

  If these factors are on a positive side, then more freedom can be allowed to the subordinate by the leader.

• Forces in the situation: The environmental and general situations also affect the leader’s behavior. These include factors like:
  1. Type of organization
  2. Group effectiveness
  3. Nature of the problem
  4. Time pressure

When the authors updated their work in1973, they suggested a new continuum of patterns of leadership behavior. In this, the total area of freedom shared between managers and non-managers is redefined constantly by interactions between them and the environmental forces. This pattern was, however, more complex in comparison to the previous one.

Conclusion

According to Tannenbaum and Schmidt, successful leaders know which behavior is the most appropriate at a particular time. They shape their behavior after a careful analysis of self, their subordinates, organization, and environmental factors.

Public trust and faith in institutions is at an all time low. Starting with the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 in the United States and then the Sovereign Debt Crisis in Europe in 2009, including the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, and the election of President Trump as well as numerous populist leaders worldwide, the voters everywhere want an end to the status quo and to believe in their leaders and institutions.

In other words, once these crises struck, the average person on the street started losing faith and trust in bankers, governments, regulators, businesses, and leaders as they felt that the leaders were more interested in serving themselves rather than the voters and hence, they started gravitating towards populists who offered a way out, however specious and tenuous it was.

To take examples, the Brexit Vote was widely seen as a vote against the establishment as was the election of President Trump. Closer home, the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, stormed to power on the back of his campaign promise of Acche Din, or Good Times, around the corner after decades of what the voters perceived as misrule and widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Need for a New Narrative Instead of Broken Promises and Failed Leaders

Having said that, it is another case that these leaders were unable to deliver much after the initial euphoria and as surveys by reputed publications indicate, the faith, and trust of the people in institutions is declining and decreasing by the day.

Thus, there is a need for a new narrative and a new story from the leaders, whether they head corporates and businesses or whether they lead nations and states. Indeed, most experts agree that people do not trust businesses either especially in the wake of several scandals that have rocked the corporate sector in recent years.

What is more worrying is that even respected and reputable corporates are falling prey to unethical and questionable conduct as can be seen in the way businesses such as the TATA Group and Infosys have had to deal with a series of highly public quarrels related to corporate governance.

Indeed, when aspiring professionals and working ones as well see that their leaders are bending the rules for personal gains, they are tempted to do likewise leading to a vicious cycle of behavior that erodes trust and faith in the institutions. As the saying goes, as is the King, So are the People, and hence, there is a responsibility on the part of the leaders to spin a new narrative and to make people believe in institutions again.

The Fallacy of Believing in Messianic Leaders

At the same time, when we talk about new narratives and a new direction, we do not mean that a Messianic figure must emerge and lead the people towards redemption. Indeed, as the examples of leaders quoted earlier indicate, once voters entrust such leaders with all their hopes and aspirations, they burden them with unrealistic expectations which can only increase the pressure on such leaders with the outcomes often not matching the expectations.

Thus, while we certainly do not need Messianic leaders, we definitely need leaders who can at least Walk the Talk and be nuts and bolts in their execution. In other words, what leaders need to do to restore trust in institutions is that they must articulate a Vision and actualize a Mission so that their actions match their rhetoric and their behavior is in consonance with their words.

Some Contemporary Leaders who are Attempting Change

For instance, several young and Generation X (those in their late 30s and 40s now) leaders such as Emmanuel Macron of France and Justin Trudeau of Canada are exactly doing this when they promise their citizens of a better tomorrow and then go about implementing such promises in a realistic and time bound manner.

Indeed, most contemporary experts believe that the new generation of leaders who are emerging worldwide are more practical and transactional in their approach and at the same time, are also known for high sounding vision and flowing rhetoric.

Thus, their contention is that these leaders must be a given a chance to restore the legitimacy of institutions and to repair the broken trust and faith in institutions. Indeed, once people lose faith in democracy and capitalism, there would be anarchy as the rules based and liberal minded system that has been in place since the end of the Second World War breaks down leading to chaos all round.

This is what is happening in some Western and Asian countries where people fed up with the status quo and what they perceive as institutions that do not serve their interests, and only the interests of the elites, are taking to the streets and engaging in violent and destructive behavior which ultimately threatens the survival of the entire system itself.

The Way Ahead

Therefore, what we need are leaders who can start with a top down articulation of vision and then follow it up with a bottom up mission that embraces everyone in an all inclusive manner. For long, institutions have served the interests of the Top 1% alone and this is causing much stress and strain on the system as can be seen from the discussion so far.

While some of the suggestions in this article might seem unrealistic and too ideal, readers would no doubt agree with our description of what happens when such suggestions are not implemented as well as the examples of leaders who are actualizing change are concerned.

We often elect political leaders who promise the moon thinking that they have the answer to all our problems and that they would deliver us the necessary outcomes. We also fall for their visions that are hopeful and believe that they have a magic wand with which they can wish away our woes (economic and social).

Similarly, business leaders often proclaim their vision and convince organizational stakeholders, including employees and shareholders, to believe in them and back them. However, when the realities of governing nations and companies clash against the hopes and the visions, followers, whether voters or employees, often direct their anger at the leaders and blame them for not delivering the goods.

But, how much of this blame can be rightfully directed towards the leaders and how much responsibility must followers adopt or even, how much blame must they take?

As the saying goes, as are the people, so are the leaders, and as are the leaders, so are the people, there is a two way relationship between leaders and their followers and hence, it is our view that this compact between the leaders and their followers must be maintained in such a manner that it does not lead to disappointment or dashed hopes when the high sounding rhetoric meets reality.

Should Leaders Overpromise?

Having said that, it is also the case that leaders must be circumspect in what they promise. More often than not, leaders, and especially politicians, get carried away during election times and promise everything under the sun and everything under the moon, to their followers.

For instance, the case of India is a prime example of what happens when leaders belie the aspirations of voters once they are elected and realize the potential implications of their poll promises.

Indeed, the contemporary History of India after Independence is rife with examples of prospective Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers who promised the electorate with high sounding poll slogans and visions that are often found wanting once the realities of the governance of a complex country like India kick in.

The current prime minister who promised good days during the elections is now faced with the daunting prospect of fulfilling the poll promises as the very real nuts and bolts execution needed to actualize such dreams and hopes is now driving the agenda rather than the lofty hopes and the catchy slogans.

Examples from Around the World

Indeed, this phenomenon of leaders overpromising and under delivering is not unique to India alone and even in the United States, one often runs into Presidential Candidates showing the way out of people’s miseries and problems and realizing that it is not possible once they are elected.

For instance, both President Obama and President Trump led their followers with high sounding rhetoric during the campaigns only for the latter to realize that nothing much changes due to systemic barriers and that the promised Utopia never materializes.

Indeed, much like the Biblical character, Moses, leading his people into the Promised Land, most political and business leaders included, often show the way ahead, but, when the time comes, the waters do not part and the bridge to redemption is not built.

What these examples reveal is that we need leaders who can not only walk the talk but also talk the walk wherein they sustain the momentum once elected. What we are not saying is that leaders must not have a vision and a mission, but, instead, they must have a practical and practicable plan to lead their followers and not simply, play with words and slogans.

How Leaders can Sustain the Momentum

This calls for an approach that is high sounding, yet realistic in execution. Two legendary business leaders often come to mind as examples of how leaders can both promise and deliver at the same time.

They are Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, and Apple’s legendary founder, the Late Steve Jobs. Both these leaders, and especially Jobs, did deliver on their promises wherein they not only laid out a vision and a roadmap for their visions to be successful, but, they also actualized the vision.

For instance, Jobs was known to articulate an extraordinary innovation and a revolutionary concept and then, work towards fulfilling it. Gates, on the other hand, was not only able to put his money where his mouth was but also ensure that he persuaded others to believe in him.

If you are thinking that this happens only in the Business world where the stakeholders are all aware of the power of hopes and the disappointment of realities, we would like to point to the examples of the current French President, Emmanuel Macron, and the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, as examples of political leaders who are able to actualize their visions.

Indeed, both these leaders in their early and mid 40s represent the coming of age of Gen X leaders who not only talk in high sounding words, but also ensure that they have what it takes to actualize such hopes into realties.

Conclusion

Lastly, the clear message to our readers is that in the coming years, we would find many leaders who would succeed as well as fail in their endeavors due to the very real systemic barriers, and hence, it would be better if they try and fail instead of just giving up due to the fear of failure.

To conclude, the emerging generation can draw several lessons from the present times where it is not only hopes that keep us alive, but also how to overcome the realities and sustain the momentum which counts in the final analysis.

You really need to extract the best out of your team members and handhold them even in the worst situations.

We all want to lead a team, but have we ever realized what are the challenges faced by a leader? Remember, a leader is just like the captain of a ship. One wrong decision and the entire blame comes on you.

The biggest challenge in leadership is to listen to everyone’s opinions and come to a mutually beneficial solution. You just can’t afford to ignore anyone, else he/she would turn out to be your biggest enemy and would neither respect you nor bother to listen to you. Agreed, there are all types of people around. You may like someone; you may not like someone at the workplace, but that does not mean that you start being rude to the person you are not comfortable with.

Avoid favouritism. As a leader; you really need to be impartial towards everyone. Not every individual has the quality of being fair towards people. As humans, we generally tend to develop feelings of jealousy and hatred towards people we do not like. Remember, such negative feelings have no place in the professional world.

Sit with your subordinates, listen to their grievances and always try to come up with innovative solutions. Never ever loose your temper. The moment you do so, trust me, very soon your name would appear in the bad books of employees.

A leader has to win the trust of his/her subordinates. And that is again a big challenge. Yes, you would be surprised to see that the colleague who used to call you his best friend has all of a sudden started avoiding you and is actually jealous of your promotion and has problem with you being his team leader.

A leader, most importantly has to understand the psychology of individuals. Never feel bad about the sudden change in the behaviour of your colleagues. Try to keep yourself in their shoes. Do not start showing your bossy attitude.

Sit with your subordinates and make them realize that your job is not to rule over them but work as a team. Making people work together is a big challenge in itself. Remember, any problem in the team, you will be held responsible.

In case of misunderstandings and conflicts, intervene immediately. Listen to both the parties and resolve the problem at the earliest.

As a leader, you are the face of your team. A team manger ought to act as a bridge between the employees and the management. It is your responsibility to ensure your subordinates are happy with their work, their bills are being released on time and they are overall satisfied with their jobs.

There are several external challenges as well in leadership. Lack of projects, scarcity of funds and lack of support from clients are some of the external challenges faced by a leader. Your subordinates will come to you for work and it is your duty to delegate responsibilities.

If your team members are unable to bring work from clients, immediately take the charge. If there is a financial crunch and your subordinates are not getting salaries on time, you just can’t afford to take the back seat. Emergency situations are unpredictable.

A leader needs to stand by his team members at the times of crisis. You just can’t run away from the situation. Remember, a boss is always referred to as a Hitler, no matter how much he thinks for his team.

A boss–employee relationship is more of a hate than a love relationship. Make your subordinates feel comfortable. Do not force them to call you “Sir”. Respect is always commanded and never demanded. You need to inspire your team members for them to look up to you and treat you as their mentor.

Many of the leadership studies conducted in the 1950s at the University of Michigan and the Ohio State University focused on these two dimensions.

Building on the work of the researchers at these Universities, Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (1960s) proposed a graphic portrayal of leadership styles through a managerial grid (sometimes called leadership grid).

The grid depicted two dimensions of leader behavior, concern for people (accommodating people’s needs and giving them priority) on y-axis and concern for production (keeping tight schedules) on x-axis, with each dimension ranging from low (1) to high (9), thus creating 81 different positions in which the leader’s style may fall. (See figure 1).

The five resulting leadership styles are as follows:

1. Impoverished Management (1, 1): Managers with this approach are low on both the dimensions and exercise minimum effort to get the work done from subordinates.

   The leader has low concern for employee satisfaction and work deadlines and as a result disharmony and disorganization prevail within the organization. The leaders are termed ineffective wherein their action is merely aimed at preserving job and seniority.

2. Task management (9, 1): Also called dictatorial or perish style. Here leaders are more concerned about production and have less concern for people. The style is based on theory X of McGregor.

   The employees’ needs are not taken care of and they are simply a means to an end. The leader believes that efficiency can result only through proper organization of work systems and through elimination of people wherever possible.

   Such a style can definitely increase the output of organization in short run but due to the strict policies and procedures, high labour turnover is inevitable.

3. Middle-of-the-Road (5, 5): This is basically a compromising style wherein the leader tries to maintain a balance between goals of company and the needs of people.

   The leader does not push the boundaries of achievement resulting in average performance for organization. Here neither employee nor production needs are fully met.

4. Country Club (1, 9): This is a collegial style characterized by low task and high people orientation where the leader gives thoughtful attention to the needs of people thus providing them with a friendly and comfortable environment.

   The leader feels that such a treatment with employees will lead to self-motivation and will find people working hard on their own. However, a low focus on tasks can hamper production and lead to questionable results.

5. Team Management (9, 9): Characterized by high people and task focus, the style is based on the theory Y of McGregor and has been termed as most effective style according to Blake and Mouton.

   The leader feels that empowerment, commitment, trust, and respect are the key elements in creating a team atmosphere which will automatically result in high employee satisfaction and production.

Advantages of Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid

The Managerial or Leadership Grid is used to help managers analyze their own leadership styles through a technique known as grid training. This is done by administering a questionnaire that helps managers identify how they stand with respect to their concern for production and people.

The training is aimed at basically helping leaders reach to the ideal state of 9, 9.

Limitations of Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid

The model ignores the importance of internal and external limits, matter and scenario. Also, there are some more aspects of leadership that can be covered but are not.

Leaders are trusted for their judgment and respected for their expertise, integrity etc and hence followed and not because they hold a certain position. For e.g. M.K. Gandhi for most part did not hold any official position to lead the Indian freedom struggle.

It is also important to understand that a formal authority and power emerging from it, might not always be able to influence people in the desired manner as; in times of crisis and difficulties people view it as coercion.

On the other hand leadership tends to create followers out of free will and choice without forcing them to accept anything thrown their way.

Authority rarely provides a scope for feedback, constructive criticism or opinions of the people on whom it is exercised however leaders provide ample platform to their followers to voice their thoughts and feedback.

When dealing with adults, the sole use of authority to direct and discipline them hardly works, leadership provides a better approach of sharing and involving thus building rapports with followers and creating long term relationships.

Authority can hardly make people change their attitudes and behaviors with lasting effects and results however a leader inspires followers through self modeled ways and hence leadership displays greater effectiveness in addressing attitudes and behaviors of people.

Exercising authority sometimes limits the approaches to arrive at solutions for issues and problems while leadership encourages people to look beyond the obvious and think innovatively and sometimes emerge with radical solutions.

Apart from it, the biggest difference between the two as cited by Stephen R Covey is the moral authority held by leaders over the followers which is absent in the case of power from authority.

Within the organizational setup when leaders also have moral authority on their subordinates by establishing a synchrony in their words and actions; the rest of the structure and processes of the organization also get aligned to it, thus creating a robust and transparent culture.

Authoritative way of working also encourages individuals to work in silos while in the organizations of today; the leaders need to have a complete picture and coordinate with other functions and departments as and when required.

It is indeed difficult for mangers and leaders to move out of their circle of authority and coordinate and interact with external people.

However the need of the hour and the more effective approach to leadership and management is when leaders come out of their comfort zone and move from exercising authority on a small group to leading the entire organization.

Individuals, who do not rely on authority but lead people, are the ones who enjoy the privilege of their ideologies and thoughts practiced by later generations long after they are gone. Even with individuals who held positions of responsibilities, the ones who actually led their people are the ones remembered and followed.

Similarly, if your organization has a weak spot, that would be the undoing as when the competitive forces exert pressure on your organization, then it would break in the same way that the chain broke. This is a powerful learning that many leaders in the corporate world learnt the hard way.

The point here is that many leaders think that by concentrating on a few divisions, regions, or operational areas, they can take it easy on the rest. However, recent events have shown that the relentless pressure of market forces makes the organization susceptible to breakdown and hit the organization the most where it is weakest.

This can be seen in the recent troubles in the airline industry where everyone thought that lowering fares and removing full service options would necessarily translate into higher volumes and increased profits. What they did not reckon with was the fact that the business landscape in which the airlines operate has changed brutally with higher fuel costs, operational expenses and the general decline in passengers because of the recession. This meant that despite concentrating on one aspect of the business that they thought was on strong ground, they ignored the weak points in their business models.

Similarly, the example of software and BPO companies is illustrative. They too thought that competing on the cost advantage was enough to sustain them. However, given the emergence of other countries with both the language and cost advantage similar to India, these companies are now realizing that the quality aspect that was traditionally weak in some operational areas is turning out to be their Achilles Heel.

The mythological Greek Hero, Achilles, had a single weak point that was exploited by the Spartans. Hence, the lessons from the past as well as the present indicate that any organization is as strong as its weakest link and therefore, business leaders cannot overlook even the supposedly simple aspects.

Finally, Murphy’s Law states that if anything can go wrong, it will. Therefore, the implications are clear for business leaders. They have to carry the entire organization with them and not leave out any specific area as being minor or unimportant. The leaders of the future would have to contend with more interconnectedness and more complexity and hence, they have to be prepared to defend their organizational chain from attack by rivals. In conclusion, do not ignore any aspect thinking that it is minor or trivial. It might come back to haunt you.

Managers in the contemporary world face a contradiction where austerity in the developed world and the cost cutting measures in place mean that they have to increase efficiencies; on the other hand, the rapid pace of change means that they have to innovate to stay ahead of market trends and to trump their competitors.

Hence, managers have to both increase productivity and innovate at the same time, which means that they have to be ambidextrous or have the ability to manage contradictory strategies at the same time.

Of course, this is not always easy as the giant corporation, 3M found. It introduced the culture of Six Sigma practices in order to boost productivity.

However, this strategy resulted in falling revenues from innovation whereas productivity did increase and helped in reduced costs. The implications of this example is that managers have to both explore new opportunities and exploit existing avenues if they are to survive the brutal marketplace of the present times.

Exploration and Exploitation

The characteristics of exploration and exploitation differ as exploration is all about long-term targets and an organizational structure that is flexible and decentralized which gives it the ability to change with the market conditions.

On the other hand, exploitation is all about centralized structure, short-term targets, and focuses on execution instead of planning. This indicates that the goals of exploring and exploitation pull the managers in different directions.

Further, many managers view the present in terms of the success that they have delivered in the past. This attitude is enshrined in the organizational DNA, which makes it difficult to think about tomorrow in today’s terms and dwell on yesterday in tomorrow’s terms.

This contradiction is at the heart of ambidextrous management that is rare in contemporary organizations but something that has delivered exceptional results for its practitioners like Haier that went from being close to bankruptcy in the 1980s to a market leader now.

The Case of Haier

The strategy employed by Haier was to self-organize which means that it setup around 2000 units in the organization as independent entities and gave them the freedom to decide how they would strategize while at the same time abiding by the broad terms and rules of interaction set by the center.

In other words, these units were free to choose whether they would think about exploring new opportunities or exploiting existing avenues according to their capabilities.

The point here is that whereas the organization as a whole cannot exist in multiple timelines, if it is divided into self-organizing units, then it can deploy multiple strategic styles simultaneously.

Closing Thoughts

Of course, this approach is not without its drawbacks as some units would duplicate the strategies of the others and they cannot scale up to the level that the organization can as a whole. Hence, the implication of such a strategy is that it must be deployed only in highly diverse and dynamic environments.

Finally, the strategy of thinking about tomorrow and living in the present with yesterday’s baggage can prove to be daunting for many.

As the world transitions from the Industrial Age to the Digital Age, there are some essential leadership styles which leaders can follow for the present times.

These are Commander, Communicator, Collaborator, and Co-Creator. These four leadership styles are relevant in firms in the Digital Economy as they signify how networked forms of organizational structures are replacing the Top Down and Hierarchical structures and hence, leaders too must adapt to the changed internal and external imperatives.

As organizational theory states that firms and their employees and leaders must “organize themselves” according to the changing external conditions, the 4Cs of leadership styles must also be embraced in response to such changes.

Before we proceed, it is important to note that each of the four leadership styles described can be adopted by business leaders either singly or in combination.

Indeed, as leadership trait theory states, leadership styles are manifested in a “continuum” rather than standalone traits which means that a leader can be a communicator and a collaborator as well as a commander and a co-creator.

This can be seen in the way famous business leaders such as the Late Legendary Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were known to adopt a particular leadership style based on situational and circumstantial conditions.

This situational and circumstantial aspect of leadership is very important for the Digital Age as organizational structures and external imperatives are no longer in “black and white” or in “neat” boxes and instead, what we now have are fungible, flexible, adaptable, and fast changing market conditions replacing certainty, clarity, and linearity.

Leadership Styles for the Digital Age

This is the reason why methodologies such as Agile have become very popular among corporates since they offer them the necessary structure to respond and react to the networked and real time demands of the market.

As theory states, Agile represents a Paradigm Shift in organizational and leadership thought since it is a symbiotic, open system, networked, self sustaining, cross functional, and adaptable and flexible form of working.

As can be seen from the terms used, Agile requires organizational leaders to be more team oriented rather than top down and hierarchical where they need to be collaborative and co-creative working with the teams rather than standalone from them.

Further, Agile also needs a mindset change from the leaders to be more responsive to the teams in a real time manner and subsequently, co-create along with the teams.

Examples from the Real World

Examples of collaborative and co-creative leadership styles can be seen in the way Gig Economy firms such as AirBnB and Uber ensure that they work together and create together where leaders of such firms are actively engaged with customers and employees as well as the other stakeholders such as the hosts in AirBnB.

Of course, communicators also represent a leadership style that is relevant for the Digital Age since networked and flat organizational structures need leaders to articulate their vision and mission to employees and bring them “on board” and secure their “buy in”.

For instance, Indian business leaders such as NR Narayana Murthy and Nandan Nilekani of Infosys fame are leaders who were communicators rather than collaborators or co-creators. It is an interesting aspect that these leaders who were heralded as New Age icons are now considered a step below the collaborators and the co-creators of the present firms.

The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same

Having said that, it is also not the case that leadership styles are entirely different between the Industrial Age Firms and the Digital Age firms. Indeed, the first C of leadership style introduced earlier is the Commanding Style where leaders are go-getters as well as Commanders of their firms.

These leaders often give orders and also know “what they are doing” in terms of being “on the ball” or “on top of things”.

An example of such a leader is Elon Musk of Tesla whose firm is a mixed automation and manufacturing firm and hence, needs leaders to be more Industrial Age style and with Digital Age styles thrown in.

Of course, Elon Musk is also a communicator and as can be seen by his recent behavior, tends to get into trouble for being more vocal and voluble.

Recent research shows that Digital Age leaders must guide their followers, be more transparent, and embrace agile methods of working if they are to succeed in the Digital Age.

While the guidance aspect has been the case for leaders even earlier, the need to be transparent is more contemporary as the sheer amount of information online makes it virtually impossible for them to “hide” from their followers.

Some surveys point to how many leaders are “afraid” of being collaborators and co-creators and surprisingly, even communicators as they seek to not move out of their “comfort zone” and their “cocoons”.

While such leaders might deliver results and as we know, that is what counts, there might be problems with being inaccessible that can prove detrimental in the longer term.

Leadership Traits as Chameleons

Lastly, to repeat the key argument, leadership styles are manifested in combination and hence, the “graying” of the spectrum of styles means that analysis of leadership traits take into account the situational and circumstantial aspects.

In other words, leaders must adapt to changes and hence, like a Chameleon, should have the ability to shift from one style to the other. To conclude, leadership in the Digital Age needs some different styles and traits though there are other age old patterns that are evergreen.

Source

Jake, Croman. 2018. The Strengths and Weaknesses of 4 Distinct Leadership Strategies

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/321806