I heard the crack as my collarbone gave way. Surely this should not happen to a superhero. Where had I gone wrong?

Scroll back 30 seconds.

Do you ever dream of being a Superhero?

My cape billowed behind me. This was mainly because my Superman suit was too big and there was a draft in the hall. But the steely look on my face, that was 100% genuine.

The family was watching television, but not me.  I laughed at their weakness. Mortals! They would watch greatness on the screen, but I would achieve greatness, right here in the hallway of our home.

This was no time for sitting around, I had committed myself to the rigours of disciplined training.  I knew that if I was going to make an impact on the world – especially aged 6 – I needed to stand out.  But I had to admit, learning to fly was hard.

I had a method.  In the hall was a big antique chair with strong arms and a soft leather seat.  From the arms I could launch myself to the stairs.  Then I could turn on the stairs and leap back to the safety of the leather cushion.  All I needed to do was inch the chair further away from the stairs after each successful flight. At some point, surely, I would be released from the habit of falling to earth.

Back and forth I went, time and again.  My confidence rose. I felt the superpowers burgeoning within me; indisputably all they needed was some great need, a challenge, a crisis for them to burst forth.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man?

I moved the chair a whole foot away from the stairs and mounted the launch platform once again.  I surveyed the distant stairs in my steely gaze and set my sights upon the third step.  My expression hardened, mouth set, and teeth clenched. My muscles bunched in anticipation as I crouched and, with an incredible force, leapt into the void.

I felt the blood (or was that superpower?) rushing through my veins as I flew, body outstretched.  I could feel the air rushing past my cheek; had I reached escape velocity?

The horizon started to fall away.  My speed was ebbing.  The steps seemed so distant. My confident gaze was replaced by wide-eyed panic. My lofty dreams were about to crash into the unforgiving floor of reality.

Above the sound of the television there was a large thump followed by a high-pitched yowl.  The rest of the family burst through the door and into the hall to gape at the terrible sight of the fallen hero.  There I lay; a diminutive blue and red heap at the base of the stairs, one arm held at an unexpected angle.

Hot tears of frustration and humiliation burnt my (noble) cheeks.  To maintain my dignity and protect my battered pride I removed my hero cape for the journey to hospital.

Great Man Theory

Why did I so badly want to be a superhero? Given the deluge of superhero movies it seems I am not alone in this desire.

It seems that deep down we have a yearning for power. A desire for the power to save. We also seem to want a hero to follow; someone we can respect so much we would be happy if they saved us.

This concept echoes through popular culture but is nothing new. One of the earliest official leadership theories is the ‘Great Man’ theory, as described by Thomas Carlyle. According to the hypothesis, The Great Man appears at a key moment of history to lead. Such men rise so far above ordinary people they are effectively worshipped.

“The Great Man was always as lightning out of Heaven; the rest of men waited for him like fuel, and then they too would flame.” 

Thomas Carlyle

Many of us dream of being heroes but very few of us can relate to this very narrow view of leadership as it excludes pretty much everyone. For starters is completely discounts great women and assumes people are born to greatness and leadership.

This theory leaves us with examples such as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar or Napoleon. These are leaders who had great power and influenced history but whose methods and legacy are often highly divisive.

I have certainly never considered myself anything close to being a ‘Great Man’ and don’t feel like I was a born leader. Not only do I not have superpowers, I am also an introvert by nature, which is contrary to the traditional popular picture of a leader.

What can we learn from the Great Man model of leadership?

Carlyle was a historian trying to suggest a grand narrative of history. He was not a leadership guru but someone who viewed events through the biography of powerful men. Studying the larger-than-life figures of history, warts and all, can help us grow as leaders.

The negative illustrations of history are perhaps the most instructive. Hitler, Stalin and other despots believed they were in the mould of the ‘Great Man’, but power is not greatness. If there is one thing we have learned from superhero culture, is it that:

“With great power comes great responsibility.”

Stan Lee

God bless Stan Lee.

What makes us great?

Responsibility is using our influence for good, and good decisions are dependent upon good values.

Moral ambiguity, particularly at the beginning of the twentieth century, allowed a lot of interpretation of ‘greatness’. This ambiguity can be traced back to philosophical trends of thinkers such as Nietzsche, an incredible thinker, but one who emphasised the power of the ‘great man’ as one unbound to any external code of ethics. (Hassan 2016). Nietzsche put it this way:

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” 

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

And thus, the post-modern world was born.

The journey to greatness?

You would have thought that the busted collarbone would have taught me the foolishness of trying to be a superhero. In the short term it just changed my superhero aspirations from Superman to Batman. Since then, I have tallied up another snapped collarbone, a cracked arm, a couple of fractured ribs, several broken fingers and a leg in plaster.

I was not born to greatness and most of the time I do not feel like anything special. I take comfort in the words of Confucius:

“Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.”

Confucius

So even if you don’t feel like the superhero, the great man or the leader, don’t give up. Being a leader, being a great person, is less about power than it is about taking responsibility and having a growth mindset.

That is how we fly above the lesser version of ourselves.

If you enjoyed this and would like access to some bonus content and get updates then please do sign up to my email list.

References

Carlyle, Thomas (1840) On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History,

Hassan, Patrick (2016) Nietzsche on Human Greatness, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10790-016-9570-9

Lee, Stan (2002) The Amazing Spider-Man, Vol. 2 #38, New York: Marvel Worldwide Inc.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm (1885) Thus Spake Zarathustra,

It was turning into my worst ever Monday morning. Certainly, my worst as a project manager and probably the most miserable meeting I had endured as a leader in any context.

When meetings go wrong

I was struggling to stay focused. The meeting was a disaster, playing out like a waking nightmare to my exhausted mind. I had just flown overnight, back from the US to Europe. For the first time, I really understood what flying the ‘red-eye’ really meant. My eyes felt like sandpaper. I had consumed some coffee – three rapid-fire espressos – but my tired and rebellious body just laughed this off and went on strike.

But I could not sleep. I had flown back to be at the Monday morning meeting with the property developer. This would usually be routine but as I strained under the weight of my leaden eyelids, I found myself ambushed by a project that had gone awry while I had been away. I was the project manager and – despite the fact I had been on vacation when things had gone wrong – I was held responsible in this Kafkaesque show trial.

The blame game

Various costs, delays, and mistakes were hurled at me in a steady bombardment. It was the first time I had heard of these misadventures, but no one cared. The various contractors and consultants, who were generally the cause of said mishaps, were not going to lift their heads above the parapet in my defence.

The silence of the guilty. Their time would come.

I stayed on the ropes for two hours, absorbing each punch until the bell rang for the meeting to end. I tried to slope away afterwards, nurse my wounds, and start to consider what had just happened, but I was cut off by the lead developer. He took me around the back for a very personal verbal kicking. He questioned my character, competence and parentage.

I went from tired, to numb, to depressed, to angry. It took at least 24 hours, and some rest, to come up with a plan. I looked at each problem, identified the party who I believed was the root cause and then studied the legal obligations in their contracts. I did not hold much power, but I did hold the purse strings when it came to paying consultants. So armed with my contracts and cash flow projections I went into bat with the contractors. 48 hrs later and the project was back on track.

The project manager’s challenge

When I worked in the construction industry as a project manager it was a classic middle-man leadership position. As a project manager, I had very little actual power. What influence I did have, beyond my interpersonal skills, came down to contracts and cash.

It is not my preferred style of management, but this is where the real leverage lies in these sorts of situations. If something goes wrong, relationships will get you some of the way, but when it really gets painful it is the legal wording and the threat of non-payment that brings people to the negotiating table.

What is transactional leadership? 

Transactional leadership is the name for this type of management. It is a leadership style following behavioural leadership theory. The approach is also related to the psychology of Transactional Analysis.

This approach relies on people’s needs and a ‘give and take’ approach to keep the team on track. In this way, it is closely linked to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. The rewards and punishments reflect a trade of basic human needs. The manager barters with the team, dangling the carrot of incentives such as wages or recognition while holding the stick of contract, discipline, or expulsion to maintain cohesion.

Transactional leadership is based upon the assumption that:

“In simple terms, better pay, (are linked to) better performance, promotion, further productivity” (Bass and Avolio (1994)).

This holds true to an extent. The more enlightened factory owners in the industrial revolution realised that adequate pay, better working conditions and rest did improve productivity. By providing the basic needs of shelter, enough money for food, rest and a secure job and environment, factory owners could have happier, more productive workers. But as we shall see, this approach has its limits.

Carrot and stick

Transactional management uses both carrot and stick; rewards and punishments.

There is generally some benchmarked expectation of performance, contracted between worker and manager. Performance above this baseline of work can be rewarded, and equally, if productivity dips below the line then punishments are used to ensure compliance.

Any parent knows that there are times when this mode of leadership is needed. In the same way, there are times – when things may be less than pleasant or time-dependent – when transactional leadership may be necessary to carry through a project or phase of delivery.

The transactional approach to management is generally effective and ensuring a reasonable level of productivity but the challenge comes when you want to inspire people beyond that.

The pros and cons of transactional leadership

On the plus side, transactional leadership is a simple and fair approach and can assure a level of performance. Because it relies on basic human needs and behaviours it is broadly effective in making people work. For the aspiring manager, it is also easy to understand and implement.

But, as mentioned previously, transactional leadership rarely gets the best from anyone. Going back to the discussion of Maslow’s hierarchy, once people have their basic needs covered – such as enough food to eat, basic shelter and security – just increasing a person’s potential resources does not necessarily lead to a proportional increase in productivity.

Research has shown that monetary incentives do not necessarily improve performance. Also, if penalties are too harsh, workers will be unwilling to take risks. People won’t take risks if they are worried about their pay or job security. Fear of punishment is a poor atmosphere for creativity. To allow people to experiment (and therefore likely fail) there needs to be an environment of psychological safety.

Transactional leadership, when carried to extremes, is the tool of despots and authoritarian regimes. There may be rewards but in these cases, the threat of punishment becomes the regimes preferred means of coercion.

Therefore, it is hard to develop a high performing team with transactional leadership alone. This is why transactional leadership is usually seen as the poor cousin of transformational leadership. Transformational leadership is about inspiring the team with a vision, supporting the growth of individuals, and achieving a higher purpose rather than just getting a job done.

When to use managerial leadership

But there are times when you do just need to get the job done. You may not have the big vision, the team you would choose or the task you want, but you have to complete the project or task. At these times – as I experienced as a project manager – transactional leadership can be effective.

Transactional leadership is suitable for tame problems. These are problems that are well defined and understood. Tame problems may be complicated, but they have tried and tested solutions, even if a degree of creativity is involved. A process can therefore be applied to these types of problems and this process can then be managed towards a solution. This is why transactional leadership is also known as managerial leadership.

Basic project, programme and production management fall into this category. A product being pieced together in a factory may be complex in its composition, but all of the construction steps are pre-defined. Similarly, most buildings, even if they have a novel exterior design, are constructed in tried and tested ways. Some crisis and emergency situations can also fall into this category. If there is a known process for dealing with the issue, then the situation can be managed.

However, the managerial approach falls short when problems are wicked in nature or when creativity is needed. The highest performing teams and the most challenging problems require other leadership approaches.

Keep transactional leadership in your toolkit

I still feel slightly queasy when I remember back to that Monday car crash of a meeting. Fortunately, I was able to recover my situation with the help of transactional leadership.

Transactional leadership is not my preferred style of management but there are times when it is necessary. When things go wrong, and relationships break down, it is an approach to fall back on. Then it is important to be straight with people. Down the line, by the book, firm but fair.

So, as a leader make sure you have transactional leadership as a tool in your back pocket. And back up this contingency plan with the contracts or other levers you will need if things go wrong. But always remember: the carrot and stick approach is not as powerful as visionary, or servant leadership can be. People want a higher purpose to work for. Not just cash and contracts.

What is the hardest leadership role you have ever fulfilled? When people hear that I was a bomb disposal officer and have done multiple operational tours they naturally assume that it was in some warzone where my leadership was most tested. My leadership was certainly tested in these environments. I had to command soldiers and achieve missions but, in those early years of leadership, there was something I was lacking. That something was transformational leadership.

I only realised this when I was working for a non-profit start-up after leaving the Army. I was, among other things, employed as the Production Manager and this role meant I had to organise the set-up of all our events. Having worked on complex construction tasks as a project manager this was – in theory at least – a relatively straightforward task. But there was one major challenge.

Event management

The preparation for our major events was driven by the set-up of the stage. This was the ‘critical path’ of activity. We had to erect the frame for the lighting and set up the speakers before the band could do their soundcheck. The band required a lot of time to do a soundcheck (picture a drummer tapping a snare long enough to induce madness) and after this was done they required a long practice too. Apparently, musicians can never have enough practice.

All this meant, that when you worked back from the start time of the event, my team had to be in way earlier than everyone else because before anyone of this strutting, tuning or even setting up could take place, we had to unpack the store and move the equipment just to get to the start point. Our venue was a big West End theatre in London and Victorian-era theatres are built like rabbit warrens. Moving large equipment around required winches, mechanical lifts, and lots of shuffling, grunting and cries of “left a bit, left a bit, no LEFT!”

So, the task was complex and had a tight deadline, but it was certainly not insurmountable. I could plan each task and the time it would require. The critical nature of the task was not the challenge.

The difficult sell

The challenge came from the fact this set-up would require a large team and we – the organisation putting on the event – were a charity. We did not have the money to pay all the people needed to do this scale of work. So basically, I had to convince a bunch of volunteers to give up their free time and work for me, for nothing, and get up early (rather than have a nice lie-in) at the weekend.

A difficult sell? Well, it gets worse, because after the event, on the same day, we had to pull everything down again. This took several more hours, so by now, you are looking at a 10-12 hour working day, on your day off, for no pay. And the real kicker? We had to do this every single week throughout the year. Volunteers? Anybody?

But the amazing thing was, we pulled it off. In the process, I learned a lot about the true meaning of transformational leadership.

From transactional to transformational leadership

I already had a good knowledge of transactional leadership. This leadership style was one that I employed a lot as a project manager. Transactional leadership plays to the needs of individuals, using rewards, and where necessary disincentives or punishments, to ensure performance and the achievement of a goal. The approach plays on our basic needs, as per Maslow’s hierarchy, to ensure compliance.

Transformational leadership, by contrast, goes beyond just self-interest. It seeks to draw people to the highest point on the Maslow triangle – that of self-actualisation. To achieve this the transformational leader needs to inspire their team with a vision. This vision is so compelling that it encourages people to stretch themselves as individuals, to come together as a team, and to work together for long-lasting change.

Who developed transformational leadership theory?

The term transformational leadership was first coined by James Downton (author of Rebel Leadership) who conducted research on charismatic leaders. But the early theory was refined by James MacGregor Burns (1978) who differentiated leadership styles as either transactional or transformational. Burns used the lens of political leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr, to explore the idea of those who led positive social change. This positive change was one of the key hallmarks of transformational leadership.

“In real life, the most practical advice for leaders is not to treat pawns like pawns, nor princes like princes, but all persons like persons.”

James MacGregor Burns

Bernard M Bass helped to further popularise the concept of transformational leadership in his book Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations (1985). He has continued his research and published a large number of influential research papers on the topic since then. Bass added to previous research by working out how the influence of a leader, and their degree of transformational effect, can be measured.

Charismatic vs transformational leaders

Bernard Bass also helped to define the difference between charismatic and transformational leadership. Charisma plays an important role in transformational leadership as it is the means by which a leader communicates vision and inspires people.

“Transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often more than they originally thought possible.”

Bernard M Bass

But charisma without social conscience can lead to negative extremes of leadership, as displayed by the likes of Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. The authentic transformational leader is not seeking to exploit others. They transcend their own personal interest for the sake of a larger, positive vision of the future. They also have the best interests of their followers at heart. These differences can be best seen in the four core components of transformational leadership.

The four key components of transformational leadership

The four components of transformational leadership are:

• Idealised Influence
• Inspirational Motivation
• Intellectual Stimulation
• Individualised Consideration

Idealised Influence 

The transformational leader creates idealised influence through being a positive role model to their followers. Their behaviour inspires others to higher standards of conduct. A transformational leader also demonstrates the willingness to take risks and displays confidence in overcoming obstacles.

Going back to my experience as a Production Manager the most important element of idealised influence for me was remaining calm. As a team we were always under time pressure and, more likely than not, we would face some issue or another on any given day. Remaining calm in the face of adversity helped everyone else to ‘keep calm and carry on,’ as the saying goes.

I also tried to set the example of work ethic. To do this, for this scenario, it was important that I was first to arrive and the last to leave. I got stuck in with the manual work and would take on the most difficult or unpleasant tasks if we were short-handed as a team. A good sense of humour also went a long way in setting the tone for the team. It was important that we had fun alongside working hard.

Inspirational Motivation 

Inspirational motivation goes beyond just leading from the front. This comes from effectively communicating a vision that brings meaning to the work of the team. The vision has to be compelling enough to capture people’s hearts and challenging enough to stretch people’s minds.

“The leader articulates a compelling vision of the future.”

Bernard M Bass

For us, the work we were doing, setting up events, was part of the much bigger picture. The organisation we were part of was committed to helping transform London.

London is an amazing place. It is a cultural geezer, a well-spring of politics, art and business. But hidden beneath the glare of the lights and smothered beneath the noise there is a lot of brokenness. Therefore, the vision was to build a community, in central London, to serve the city and see it renewed at every level.  It was a family of artists, accountants, musicians, bankers, teachers, emergency services workers – and everything in between – who wanted to inspire people to be better. Lawyers who wanted to see real justice, financiers who wanted to alleviate poverty and business leaders who did not measure success just by profit.

It was incredibly exciting. I bought into that vision. I moved house and changed career to be a part of it. And, even though I was not the original dreamer of the dream, once I had captured the vision, I wanted to share it.

So, my job as a leader was to connect the job we were doing to that larger vision and that is what we did at the start of every set-up. We gathered as a team to pray and remind each other of why we were giving up our weekends. There was no way I could have persuaded the teams to give up their time willingly if they did not buy into the mission.

Intellectual Stimulation

A transformational leader needs to provide intellectual stimulation to individuals in their team. This can be done by setting challenging goals, but perhaps more importantly, by encouraging creativity and allowing people to take risks.

Manual labour – which is effectively what we were doing – did not seem to lend itself to creativity but there even I was surprised. Given the opportunity, the team brought innovative solutions to every part of what we did. Whether it was new storage solutions or ethical sourcing of products, each team member was able to bring ideas to improve our work.

One simple idea that came from team members was eating together during the soundcheck. There was a slack time for us while this was going on and eating together brought social bonds beyond which we would have gained in just working alongside each other. Many deeper, long-term friendships were born out of these shared lunches. It taught me that any creative idea, no matter how small, can bring huge rewards if you are willing to experiment and try things out.

Individualised Consideration

A truly transformational leader gives special attention to every individual in their team. This is what is meant by individualised consideration. A good leader is always looking for learning and then supports the team member through their growth. As Bass puts it:

“The leader is individually considerate, providing the follower with support, mentoring and coaching“

Transformational leaders also work to turn their followers into leaders. They empower individuals, set challenges, and help people to change expectations of what they can achieve.

As Production Manager, my long-term goal was to do myself out of a role. I wanted to raise up new leaders to take over my position. The organisation was growing rapidly so there were plenty of other challenges for me to take on. Equally, if I failed to raise up new leaders, I would stymy the expansion of the organisation as a whole. Therefore, I systematically coached and mentored my team leaders. They all developed into excellent leaders and one of them did indeed go on to take over from me. It has been a great pleasure to see each of these leaders go on to success in their professional work in the subsequent years. Being part of their development journey, even in a small way, was a real privilege.

Transforming your approach to leadership

Transformational leadership is a term often used but much less frequently understood. A true, authentic transformational leader is known by the following traits: they are a positive role model; they communicate a compelling vision; they embrace creativity and develop their followers into the leaders of the future.

It took a very different leadership challenge, that of leading volunteers, for me to fully grasp these lessons, but once learned I have not forgotten them since. In my subsequent jobs, I have continued to measure myself against these four key areas. That process of examining my practice against the standard for transformational leadership has changed me, as a leader and manager, for the better.

How about you? Would you describe yourself as a transformational leader? We can all find areas for improvement. Which area do you most need to work on? Why not take a couple of minutes now to think about what you can do today to develop your leadership. You might surprise yourself – the results can be transformational!

I stopped and stared at the footprint. It was about the size of a dinner plate and as far as I was concerned it was not supposed to be there. Unfortunately, no matter how long I stared at it, the print would not disappear from the otherwise pristine snow. It was undoubtedly a polar bear footprint, but I had assumed no bear would come this far up into the mountains. The evidence in front of me told me I was wrong. The problem was I had planned against this false assumption and decided, that to save weight, I would not carry my rifle and ammunition with me when we scaled the mountain. A rifle is not a usual bit of mountaineering equipment but when you are in a remote location in Greenland it is better to carry a rifle than to become a hungry bear’s mid-morning snack.

Gazing at the footprint reminded me of a joke. Two guys are camping, and a bear appears and starts growling. The first guy immediately opens his rucksack and starts to put on his training shoes. The second guy says “Your crazy! You can’t outrun a bear!” The first guy replies, “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.”

My climbing partner asked me why I was smiling.

Exit pursued by a bear

It would have been somewhat insensitive to share what I had been thinking. I probably could outrun my climbing partner but, considering she was also my wife, I was not going to point this out. If I did, I would have not remained alive, or married, long enough to do anything.

I pushed the distracting thoughts away and considered our options. We could head back to the tent for the rifle – which would take at least an hour – or continue up the mountain. I figured that if the polar bear was still around then the traverse back to the campsite would be the most likely way to meet it. Therefore, we choose to continue up the mountain. Hopefully, by the time we were done, the bear would have moved on, heading back to the glacier for some tasty seal, rather than following us any higher.

I hoped.

The pursuit of adventure

I have always loved adventure. As a kid, I dreamed of being Indiana Jones or MacGyver and would roam the woods with my Swiss Army knife practising my skills. Some of these dreams I turned into reality. I went on expeditions to the jungles of Central America to look for archaeological remains and went on to train as a bomb disposal officer.

I also dreamed of being an explorer and doing a real ‘first’. That led me to become a fellow of the Royal Geographical Society and researching the few bits of virgin territory left in the world. Through this study, I became attracted to Greenland as a place where there were still mountains that had no recorded first ascents or descents, particularly on skis, which is the method I was hoping to use. The mountains in Greenland are not particularly tall or necessarily technical, so they did not hold the allure for all mountaineers, but they suited me just fine. They were remote, untouched, and ripe for scaling.

That idea had led to this expedition, to this climb and this moment of decision regarding the bear. Making choices about avoiding bears is not every leader’s day-to-day but it reflected who I am. Being adventurous was part of my true self; a facet of me as an authentic leader.

What is an authentic leader?

Authentic leadership is a relatively new leadership theory in the behavioural school of leadership theories. In many ways, it is largely the coming together of other leadership models. But it does put an emphasis on being true to self that differentiates it from other approaches.

Taken at face value authentic leadership could be misleading or even damaging. After all, a toxic leader can be true to himself or herself and still be a bad leader. That is why true authentic leadership is about self-awareness, not just being true to self. It is also why an authentic leader also displays all four of the leadership traits listed below.

Who developed authentic leadership theory?

Bill George is the name most associated with the term after publishing his book Authentic Leadership in 2003. He approached the subject from the practitioner point of view, making the case for responsible leadership as compared to the fake, hubristic, greedy or power-grabbing leadership that he observed in various spheres of management.

The subject has gained traction in academia and Bruce J Avolio and William L Gardner are at the forefront of scholarly writing on the theory. If you read them, and other scholars work, you will see there is no one agreed definition of authentic leadership. There is however growing consensus around the four key qualities of an authentic leader. These are:

• Self-awareness
• Balance
• Transparency
• Morality

The four factors of authentic leadership

Here is an explanation of the four characteristics displayed by authentic leaders:

Self-awareness

An authentic leader is self-aware. Through self-inquiry, they are aware of their strengths and weaknesses. The importance of this trait can be traced back at least as far as Socrates whose basis of wisdom was:

“Know thyself.”

Socrates

An authentic leader can also show emotion and does not need to hide weakness or failure. This gives them the humanity and vulnerability that Brené Brown advocates for in her book Dare to Lead.

An authentic leader also has an informed view of how others perceive them; not just a self-image based on hubris and self-importance. This self-awareness means that a leader comes across as genuine and humble.

Self-inquiry means that an authentic leader is on a path of continual development. They have what is commonly called a growth mindset.

Balance

Balance, for the authentic leader, means balanced processing. In other words, they reflect on their decisions to balance the needs of the task, team and individual. In this way, they encompass the Action Centred leadership of John Adair.

Balance is also reflected in other aspects of a leader, such as work-life balance. Here, the metaphor of a leader watching a control panel or dashboard is a good one to keep in mind. The authentic leader is conscious of their physical, mental, spiritual, and relational gauges. They monitor their levels to make sure they do not stray into the red, or run empty, on any given dial.

Transparency

An authentic leader is transparent in what they do. They have clear motives, not secret agendas. This idea is closely related to the character trait of integrity: a leader is true to their values and acts in accordance with their words. This means their behaviour is easy to understand and predict.

They also have relational transparency. That does not mean they are over-familiar with colleagues and team members. They are friendly but also clear about roles, responsibilities and boundaries, and these standards are the same for everyone. They do not have a clique or inner circle with whom they act differently.

An authentic leader seeks to resolve conflict but does not shy away from difficult conversations. They do not hide failure – be that their own or their team’s – but seek to learn from mistakes and rectify problems.

Morality

An authentic leader has a strong sense of morality. They have an internalised moral perspective – an inner compass – based on the personal and social precepts that they hold to. This concept is strongly linked to self-awareness as you must know your personal values in order to live by them. The emphasis on moral tenants is similar to that of Principle-centred Leadership espoused by Stephen R Covey.

Knowing yourself and your values is unlikely to be enough for other people to follow you. This is why the concept of morality is also related to the idea of mission and the commitment to a dream that goes beyond selfish motives. An authentic leader, as with the transformational leader, communicates a vision that inspires others and seeks to bring positive change that will outlast them.

The adventurous leader

“To thine own self be true.” Polonius, Hamlet

We made it to the top of the mountain, and back again, without being troubled by the bear. I got to fulfil my dream of being an explorer, of going somewhere first. In this way, I was being true to myself. I love adventure; it is part of who I am. I am not always off on expeditions, but I make adventure part of my approach to life. I continually seek to challenge myself, remain open to new experiences and find joy from being in the outdoors.

Adventure is part of who I am. How about you? What would you say defines your personality and approach to leadership?

Self-awareness is the keystone of authentic leadership. It is the main element that differentiates it from other leadership theories. But, to be truly authentic, remember the three other elements too. Authentic leadership is being balanced, transparent and having a sense of morality. An authentic leader is committed to a higher vision, a purpose that is not just personal and a set of values that promote positivity. That is what sets aside an authentic leader from a hubristic leader who is true to self, but awful!

It might be that you have never thought about it before but what makes you authentic, not just an imitation? Take a few moments to reflect on how you would describe yourself as a manager. If you get the chance today, be brave and ask your colleagues about how they would describe you.

I know what you are thinking: leadership theory, surely that is dull and largely irrelevant? Believe me, I understand! I have always thought of myself as a practitioner rather than a theorist but, reflecting upon my journey as a leader, and having been taught various theories over the years, I can highly recommend that you read on. These leadership models can be very instructive in understanding your own leadership style, the areas where you can develop and approaches to help you improve as a manager.

To illustrate this, and hopefully give some relevance to the theories, I will share how — somewhat unexpectedly — I became a leader and then went on to develop my management skills. Leadership theory can be a very dry subject so hopefully, these stories and examples will give you an accessible introduction to each one.

Why is leadership theory important?

You do not have to know every leadership theory in detail in order to be a good leader but, through my experience and coaching other leaders, I have found that understanding a few key models really helps in developing management skills and self-awareness. The most useful theories help us to understand leadership – both our own and others – and how people influence each other. Listed below are some of the major theories that I have found most useful at a personal level.

If you would like more detail on any one of the leadership theories listed below just click on the hyperlinks and they will take you to posts with a fuller description, an expanded story and more examples.

1. Great Man theory

Great Man theory (Carlyle, 1840) is one of the oldest leadership theories and is the idea that leaders are born with the innate ability to shape history. This is a problem for most aspiring leaders if, like me, you were not born a Great Man by any means. I certainly wanted to be powerful. I wished that I could be great (or at least popular). Back then I did not aspire to be Alexander the Great or Napoleon, I did not even know who they were when I was that young; at that time my role models for leadership were superheroes.

More specifically, I wanted to be Superman. But, unfortunately, I was not gifted with superpowers from birth. Therefore I had an idea that with some rigorous training and putting myself in peril, that my burgeoning powers would be revealed. So, I undertook flying training. This involved me jumping from the stairs in my house to a chair in the hall. For every successful jump, I moved the chair further away. This progressed until a crash, a scream and a broken collarbone later, I found myself the only person in Guildford hospital in a superman costume. I recovered but did not learn immediately. I broke my collarbone a second time before giving up on the superhero training.

So much for the Great Man approach! This theory has mainly been debunked now but the important thing to remember is not to discount yourself from leadership. We may not be born to greatness but we can all achieve great things in whichever situation we find ourselves. And don’t make the wrong comparisons. Don’t assume you are powerless just because you don’t seem to have the same influence as a CEO or world leader.

2. Control and domination

Great Man theory was linked to the idea of power and that leaders could naturally dominate others by the strength of their personality and presence (Moore, 1927). This control of others was considered the natural state of affairs for a leader.

This brings us to my next disastrous attempt at leadership when I was a Cub Scout, aged about 10. By virtue of my age, as much as anything else, I was made a ‘Sixer’; a leader of six other poor Cub Scouts. Every week, on the evening the pack met, we had to line up on parade for an inspection. To achieve this, I used the threat of violence to control and dominate my six. It was a misuse of the little power I was given. Not only is this horrific it is also ridiculous. I was a very skinny boy who could hardly stand up in a stiff breeze. Any show of power was at best highly tenuous and when I look back it is all very embarrassing.

The important lesson here is that power is frequently abused, no matter what the level of responsibility. The events of the early twentieth century and the abuses of power by the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao were enough to make people rethink these early ideas of what makes a leader great. We need to remember these lessons if we are going to avoid misusing our influence and becoming toxic leaders.

3. Leadership traits and skills

The next step in leadership theory was studying the traits of leaders, to see what common characteristics made a good leader. In the early iterations of the theory, these traits were very much of an unachievable ideal (Galton, 1869). The idea of a leader being male, tall, good looking, charismatic, confident and outgoing held sway for some time.

Therefore, by this measure, things did not get better for me as I went from a scrawny child to a gawky teenager. If I compared myself to the leadership traits from early theories I had little to offer. I was not charismatic, confident, or attractive. I was not the sports star or the leader of any gang at school. It is almost a surprise that my leadership journey did not stop there.

The idea of innate leadership traits evolved into finding more positive characteristics such as integrity, moral courage or wisdom. It was recognised that these traits could be developed and therefore the next logical step was identifying key leadership skills, ones that could be taught. The tipping of the balance in the theory, from nature to nurture, was an important one, not least for me! Now the focus was on skills and tools that could be learned by new leaders and managers.

4. Action-centred leadership

When I went to college, for the first time in my life, I was actually taught specifically about how to be a leader. Leadership development was part of our syllabus and I can still remember the lecture where we were taught John Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership model (1979). This approach was based upon a straightforward theory you could learn and skills that you could employ.

The simple idea behind Action-Centred Leadership is that of balancing the three core management priorities of the task, team and individual. Most commonly illustrated as a Venn diagram, these three interlocking circles represent the juggling act of a leader. They must continuously seek to achieve the task, build the team and support the development of each individual.

At the time I found, that with this simple tool, I could at least start to identify what I needed to do as a leader and where perhaps I might be failing. I went from the quietest person in my year to the dizzy heights of college prefect with my newfound knowledge. I finally felt that I was developing as a leader. This is the product of having an effective tool that you can apply when learning to manage others.

5. Situational leadership theory

The next key step for me was a lesson in situational leadership. Situational leadership (Blanchard, 1985) is a model that demonstrates how you can adapt your management style depending upon the team you are working with and the environment you find yourself in. The leader chooses their approach – to delegate, support, coach or direct – as appropriate.

I have always loved the mountains and during university, I was climbing in the Alps with a few friends. There was no official leader of the group but the loudest person in the group (not me) inevitably assumed that role. But they did not need to do much as we were all competent. Once roles were delegated out we did not need coaching or even that much support. That went well until we hit a real challenge.

One day we were climbing a long route and the weather deteriorated quickly. The clouds thickened and, as we reached the summit, we found ourselves in the middle of an electric storm. The person who had been leading seemed paralysed by this turn of events. I suddenly knew what to do. It was a crisis and the team needed clear direction. Without even really thinking I took command. I outlined a quick simple plan and led the team, at pace, down the mountain to safety.

Being directive is not my usual or favourite leadership style so this experience gave me new confidence in my ability to flex my approach as a leader. I still find the situational leadership model useful when considering how best to manage a team given their experience and the circumstances.

6. Servant leadership theory

After university, I went to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. The motto of Sandhurst is, famously, ‘Serve to Lead’ and here the emphasis was on putting the mission and the team before self. This idea of ‘the servant as leader’ (or servant leadership) was developed by Robert Greenleaf (1977).

This model of servant leadership – creating an environment where people can flourish and succeed – has influenced all my leadership since. Helping others to succeed is something that motivates me, particularly in my work as a coach.

But what I like most about this model is that it turns traditional leadership (particularly the Great Man theory) on its head. Servant leadership empowers us to lead, humbly, from whatever our position or situation. For me, Mother Teresa would be an example of this sort of leadership. She had a global impact through living by this philosophy.

7. Non-directive leadership

The exposure to situational leadership and servant leadership helped me to learn that my favourite leadership style was non-directive. I liked to ask questions rather than telling people what to do. I prefer to encourage people to be creative, to work together and to share success rather than being loud and the centre of attention.

This style was well suited to bomb disposal which was my first job as an officer in the Royal Engineers. I learned to love working in small, specialist, highly motivated teams. It also set me up for the coaching and consulting work I would do more of later.

If you feel uncomfortable bossing people around then it is important to understand non-directive leadership and how you can influence people without having to shout at them. If you like bossing people around then maybe consider adding some non-directive techniques into your management style. You might be surprised by how effective they are!

8. Transactional leadership theory

I left the Regular Army and started working as a project manager on large construction projects, such as The Shard, the tallest building in London. Here I was mainly managing consultants and building contractors on the behalf of property developers. As compared to the Army, people in this job would not do what I said just because of my position. When the chips were down it was all about transactions.

As a project manager, I had to fall back on the leverage of contractual agreements and money to ensure that things got done. This, for me, was a lesson in transactional leadership (Burns, 1978). This was management using a carrot and stick approach; a functional style that relies on basic human needs such as income and job security. As such it has its uses – as I found – but the approach remains quite limited in its overall effectiveness. That is why it is often considered the poor twin of transformational leadership.

This managerial style of leadership was not one I was inspired by nor one I wanted to rely on. Having to use it was a valuable lesson but I soon realised that the construction industry was not where my heart was.

9. Transformational leadership theory

So, when I was offered the chance to be a part of a non-profit start-up I jumped at the chance. In my new role, I was responsible for the charity’s operations and this included needing to recruit, train and manage large groups of volunteers.

The largest group of volunteers that I led needed to give up one Sunday in three and work a ten-hour day. To achieve this, I had to learn about transformational leadership (Burns 1978). In other words, my leadership had to be linked to a higher cause or vision that would inspire people. My position held no real power. There was no military law, contract, or money to use as an influence. Scarily, I had to motivate the team, without these levers, for them to turn up and do the job. This was the first time I really had to think about vision and how to inspire people to be part of something.

I also learnt a lot about coaching. As the team and work grew, I had to mentor and develop new leaders to take on the extra responsibility. That is another key facet of being a transformational leader – raising up new leaders – and one that I continue through my various responsibilities, not just my work as a leadership coach.

10. Authentic leadership theory

All these experiences led me into the coaching and consulting work I do today. Here I am able to help businesses and leaders as they face their own challenges. As I reflect on the leader that I am today, I feel I am getting closer to what might be called authentic leadership (George, 2003). Being an authentic leader is primarily about self-awareness, balance, transparency and a strong sense of morality.

In my case, I am increasingly comfortable leading in a way that reflects my values, my character and the things I am passionate about. I know that I am a leader who loves adventure and challenge and I find empowering and equipping others deeply satisfying. I am also more confident to share my thoughts and experiences; including admitting when I don’t know or when I have messed up.

And that is good as we can all get complacent as leaders. The saying goes that ‘pride comes before a fall’ and that was certainly the case for me. Just when I thought I was getting this leadership thing sorted, I became a parent and realised I still had plenty of failings! So the journey continues.

Understanding and promoting your own leadership development

So that is the journey so far. Basically, I have come a long way down the leadership path, but I have a long way to go. But that is not a problem. One theme that runs through newer leadership theories is that becoming a leader is a journey of continual learning and development. Each new day, each new challenge is an opportunity to grow.

Leadership theory is only useful if it helps us in that growth. My advice, especially if you are new to management, is to take one or two models that you can most relate to and then use them to help reflect on your leadership and the leaders that you follow or admire. Once you feel comfortable with one style, try another.

I am biased (being a leadership coach!) but having a coach or mentor can massively accelerate your development as a manager. Think about leadership as you would any other skill; if you want to get better, find someone who can help you as you set goals and practice.

You can start now. Take a few moments to reflect. Which of the leadership theories above most intrigues you? Once you have identified one then ask, what aspect of this model could you apply in the interactions you have today?

Here is a short introduction to some of the most important leadership theories, trends, and models. These can all be instructive in understanding your own leadership style, broadening your expertise, and giving you tools to improve as a manager.

Great-man theory

Great Man theory (1840) is one of the oldest leadership theories. It is the idea that true leaders – or heroes – are born with the innate ability to shape history. Thomas Carlyle was a historian, and he came up with the theory based on the examples of key historical figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte.

However, this premise – that leaders are born not made – has largely been refuted. The main importance of this theory is that it reveals how we have traditionally seen leaders. Carlyle’s also work gave impetus to the study of leadership and the development of further leadership theories.

Control and domination, power, and influence

Great Man theory was linked to the idea of power and that leaders would naturally dominate others by the strength of their personality. This school of leadership theory is summed up in Moore’s definition of leadership from 1927:

“The ability to impress the will of the leader on those led and induce obedience, respect, loyalty and cooperation.”

B.V. Moore at the May conference on leadership (1927)

The point to note here is that there is no reference to the responsibility a leader has for their followers or to any moral code. It took the extreme abuses of power, by the likes of Hitler, Mao, and Stalin in the first half of the twentieth century, for these ideas of leadership to be properly challenged.

Leadership traits and skills

Academics also started to identify the traits of leaders, to see what common characteristics made a good leader. In the early iterations of the theory, these traits were seen as inherited and linked to the idea of the Great Man, the charismatic male hero, who was tall and good-looking (Galton, 1869).

This school of thinking evolved into identifying more positive traits such as integrity, moral courage, and humility. Importantly there was also a shift towards characteristics that could be developed. As the emphasis moved from innate to acquired characteristics, the focus moved to identify leadership skills and behaviours that could be learned, such as communication, strategic thinking and decision-making.

Action-centred leadership

John Adair’s Action-Centred Leadership model (1979) was built on the premise that leadership skills and behaviours could be taught and adopted.

The simple idea behind Action-Centred Leadership is the need to balance the three core management priorities of task, team and individual. A good leader must continuously seek to achieve the task, build the team, and support the development of each individual.

Transactional and transformational leadership theories

James MacGregor Burns took the ideas of influence and behaviour in another direction when he defined the difference between Transactional and Transformational leadership (1978).

Transactional leadership is management using a carrot and stick approach. This functional style relies on basic human needs such as income and job security. These elements are related to the lower end of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Transformational leadership goes beyond transactional leadership. This type of leader seeks to inspire people with a compelling vision, and lead them to self-actualisation, at the top of the Maslow pyramid. Bernard Bass (1985) built on the work of Burns and defined the key behaviours of the transformational leader as being:

• a positive role model,
• providing encouragement and
• supporting followers to fulfil their potential.

Situational leadership theory (flexible leadership)

The Situational leadership model, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, (1985) took leadership theory in another slightly different direction. Their model is about having a flexible approach. It demonstrates how a leader can adapt their management style depending upon the experience of the team and individuals they are working with, while also considering the environment and circumstances they find themselves in. The leader chooses their approach – either delegating, supporting, coaching, or directing – depending upon the situation.

Values-based leadership

Values-based leadership developed in response to various moral failings of prominent leaders. This school of leadership – related to trait theory – encompasses both servant leadership and authentic leadership models.

The central idea is that the values-based leader has a strong moral compass and leads according to their personal values and the shared values of their organisation or community. This model stresses the importance of being a good leader, not just a charismatic one, and the ability to make the right – or ethical decisions – not just effective, or bold choices.

Servant leadership theory

The idea of ‘the servant as leader’ was developed by Robert Greenleaf (1977). This model of servant leadership is primarily about motivation. The servant-leader wants to serve others and society by raising up new leaders and helping people move towards a positive vision of the future. They are not seeking power for themselves, instead, servant leaders share power and empower others.

Toxic or bad leaders

At the other end of the scale, academics also started to identify the opposite of values-based or good leaders. Marcia Lynn Whicker popularised the term ‘toxic leader’ (1996) and various models have been developed to identify such bad leadership.

For example, Barbara Kellerman’s study (2004) identified seven types of bad leaders. These are:

• Incompetent
• Rigid
• Intemperate
• Callous
• Corrupt
• Insular
• Evil

Authentic leadership theory

The term authentic leadership was first popularised by leadership practitioner Bill George (2003). He wrote a book, by the same name, in response to failures of senior corporate management, such as the fraudulent behaviour that led to the fall of the energy giant Enron (2001). George advocated for leaders of “purpose, values and integrity” rather than those motivated by greed and power.

Georges’s academic colleagues, Bruce Avolio and William Gardner, then developed models around this concept identifying the key behaviours or traits of an authentic leader. These included:

• Self-awareness and self-regulation
• Balanced processing of information
• Relational transparency
• Strong sense of morality

Why leadership theory is important

So that is a very quick introduction to some of the key leadership schools, theories, and models.

Theory can be dry but understanding these models is important for the following reasons:

• They give us language and concepts that help us reflect on our leadership experience and the conduct of others.
• They give us tools to use in our leadership practice
• They act as signposts to ways we can develop and grow as leaders

And you can start now. Take a few moments to reflect. Which of the leadership theories above most intrigues you? What does this model reveal about your own leadership? Which tool could you apply in the interactions you have today?

Are you working for a toxic leader? Do you have the kind of boss that makes you dread going to the office? What is it that makes them a bad manager?

Marcia Lynn Whicker popularised the term ‘toxic leader’ (1996) and the phrase is frequently used to describe bad leaders. But what does it actually mean? Sometimes we implicitly know that we are working for a terrible boss, but it can be hard to explain why.

The seven types of bad leadership

Fortunately, researchers have developed various models to identify the traits of bad leaders. For example, Barbara Kellerman conducted a study in 2004, motivated by the desire to define the characteristics of a toxic leader.

“In spite of all the work on leadership that assumes it by definition to be good, I describe how we exercise power, authority, and influence in ways that do harm.”

Barbara Kellerman

Kellerman identified seven traits of bad leaders. These are:

• Incompetent
• Rigid
• Intemperate
• Callous
• Corrupt
• Insular
• Evil

The first three sorts of leaders in this list are ineffective, the last three are unethical. So, let’s look at each one in more detail.

Incompetent

Does your boss not know what they are doing? Are they lacking the requisite skills or experience for the job? Are they constantly making the sort of mistakes you would not expect of someone in their position?

If the answer is yes then you may well be working for an incompetent manager.

Sometimes a person is simply not qualified to do a job. There is the danger for any leader (and here we need some self-awareness too) that someone can be promoted to the point of incompetence. In other words, just because a person is good in one role does not mean they will excel in a more senior position.

This sort of promotion mistake happens frequently at lower levels of management. People are frequently appointed to management because of time served or technical ability. This can lead to frustration or failure within a team. That is why careful selection and appropriate training are vital for each leadership responsibility stratum. This is best demonstrated in the skill framework of Robert Katz which shows differing needs for technical, human and conceptual skills as we progress through our careers and take on more responsibility.

Rigid

Is your boss closed to new ideas (or other people’s ideas)? Does your manager doggedly stick to a process, no matter the context? If they initiate a project are they unable to adapt it, or if necessary, kill it off?

In this case, we are most likely talking about a rigid leader, someone who may well have skills and experience but are unwilling to change.

By contrast, good leaders display flexibility. They are flexible of mind; open to new ideas and willing to change if the evidence shows that is the right thing to do. They are also able to apply Situational Leadership and adopt a style that suits the setting.

Intemperate

Does your line manager lose their temper easily? Is your boss hard to predict? Do your team leader’s emotions lurch from one extreme to another?

Here we are looking at an intemperate leader.

Bad leaders lack self-control. They struggle to manage their emotions or to see the impact of their emotions upon others. They display a lack of empathy and emotional intelligence.

Good leaders are not zombies. They do express themselves and demonstrate vulnerability, but they are also balanced. Effective managers are stable and conscious of how their emotional state affects the team. This balance is one of the key traits of being an Authentic Leader.

Callous

Is your boss self-centred? Is their language full of ‘me’ rather than ‘we’? Are they uncaring or blind to the needs of others?

If this is the case, then you are probably experiencing a callous leader.

The callous leader is petty and unkind. They are also selfish as they interpret the world primarily through its impact upon them, rather than considering others. This trait is dangerous as it destroys trust. In the trust equation it is self-orientation that is the denominator; the thing that undermines trustworthiness in any relationship. For a leader in a team, this can have dire consequences.

Good managers are considerate of others. This is best exemplified by Servant Leadership, where the leader is measured by how they develop the people they lead (serve) and work with them to achieve the goal.

Corrupt

Is your boss economic with the truth? Are they happy to climb over others, and gain an advantage by any means, on their way up the slippery pole of promotion? Do they take liberties with their expenses or other company resources?

If so, then your manager may well be corrupt to one degree or another.

Corruption is a lack of normal morals. People who do not see themselves as tied to usual precepts are happy to lie, cheat or steal to get want they want. That could be in pursuit of a goal, promotion or more money, but it is driven by self-interest.

This corruption is at odds with values-based leadership, where good leaders have a strong moral compass. A good leader is not just charismatic and successful; they also make ethical choices.

Insular

Does your leader hold onto power? Do they display a lack of equity in how they treat people? Does your boss have specific cronies and hangers-on?

This describes an insular leader.

An insular leader discriminates between people in a negative way. They have in-groups and out-groups; people whom they favour over others. These sorts of leaders do not share power with equality (if at all) and will strive to maintain their power dynamic by pushing others down.

Good leaders are not insular. A good manager is even-handed and will balance the needs of the task, the team and the individual (as in Action-Centred Leadership). They also encourage everyone in their team to flourish and grow. This is key to being a Transformational Leader.

Evil

Does your boss create an environment of fear? Are they destructive and immune to the damage they cause? Do they believe they are above concepts of right and wrong?

Here we are describing an evil leader.

I very much hope that your boss cannot be described as evil. Unfortunately, history shows us that such leaders do exist and can climb to the very top of any organisation. These leaders see themselves as ‘Great Men’ (and they are more frequently male) and seek power without moral responsibility.

Evil leaders accept no restraint. They will contemplate deliberate physical or psychological harm to others if it gets them what they want. And this behaviour reinforces itself if it works, in an ever-downward spiral. The evil leader will follow down that ever more destructive path if they are allowed to continue. Therefore, we all have a responsibility to look out for and challenge this sort of leadership.

A good leader does not achieve results by any means. A good leader, particularly one with large amounts of influence, surrounds themselves with people who can challenge them and stop absolute power from corrupting absolutely.

What to do if you have a toxic boss

So, if you think you are working for a toxic boss, consider these seven traits and identify what it is that makes them a bad leader.

Are they incompetent, rigid, intemperate, or callous? If yes, then it is likely their leadership is ineffective. They will not be building high-performing teams that continue to excel and deliver. The behaviour displayed here is unprofessional and it means that as well as being ineffective, the leader is not going to be a good role model.

Alternatively, they may be corrupt, insular, or just plain evil. In this case, the leader is immoral. These leaders undermine the values of an organisation. At worst, the impact of these immoral leaders can spread beyond just the team they work with. They can damage communities and even society as a whole. If you are working for this sort of leader you may well need to take some personal responsibility and find an appropriate channel to report any unethical or unlawful behaviour.

The bottom line is, if you are working for any sort of bad leader then consider your options. Are things likely to change and if so, then how? Can you challenge their behaviour? Is there someone you can speak to? Can you move teams?

It can be really tough in these situations (I know, I have been there too) but don’t just be a victim and just accept the unacceptable. Think about ways you can take some ownership of the situation.

Learning from bad leaders

There is one positive that comes from working for a toxic boss. There is no more powerful lesson in what it means to be a good leader than working for a bad one.

So, if you are pointing the finger at someone else today, ensure that you also reflect on your leadership. What do you not want to become? We all have weaknesses that could lead us to excesses in one or more of these areas. So be self-aware and do whatever you need to do to avoid evolving into that toxic personality.

The term Adaptive Leadership was coined by Harvard University professor Ron Heifetz in his 1994 book, Leadership Without Easy Answers. The theory of Adaptive Leadership addresses the strategic question of how to mobilise people to adapt to change.

We don’t have to think too far back to realise how important this concept is. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how important it is to quickly adapt to new and fast-evolving circumstances. The Harvard Business Review was just one of the voices advocating Adaptive Leadership as the right sort of leadership model to assist in these sorts of situations.

But, Adaptive Leadership is not just relevant to crisis management. The pace of change in the business sphere demands an adaptive approach. For example, take the development of smartphones a decade ago, or now, the progression of AI; organisations that ignore these seismic technological shifts only put themselves in peril.

So how do we change and adapt to challenging environments? Ron Heifetz set out 5 strategic principles to guide leaders, and their teams, through this process.

5 strategic principles of Adaptive Leadership

These are the five strategic principles in simple terms:

1. Diagnose the situation.
2. Manage distress.
3. Identify distractions.
4. Delegate effectively.
5. Encourage challenge.

Heifetz’s original wording was more lengthy, and each concept needs a little more unpacking, so let’s look at each in more detail.

1. Diagnose the situation

The first step is problem diagnosis and understanding the situation. In the words of Heifetz:

“Diagnose the situation in light of the values at stake, and unbundle the issues involved.”

To analyse the circumstances Heifetz uses a simple problem typology and asks, what sort of problem do you face? Is it a technical or adaptive challenge? In this simple approach, a technical issue already has a known solution. These sorts of problems require management. Adaptive challenges are problems which have no precedent (such as AI) or ones that continue to evolve (like a pandemic) and therefore require leadership to address them. In this way, Heifetz reflects Keith Grint’s problem typology and technical issues are the same as tame problems, and adaptive challenges are synonymous with wicked problems.

One thing a leader can do to help at this stage is to ‘get on the balcony’ rather than being stuck ‘in the dance.’ In other words, a leader needs to take a physical or mental step back to gain perspective and assess the issue, slightly apart from the frenetic activity of the team. This concept is often referred to as leadership from the balcony and dance.

2. Manage distress

The need for change can lead to resistance and distress. People don’t resist change per se, in fact, people frequently embrace change when they see it as positive. For example, few people will turn down a pay rise!

But change can challenge values, assumptions and beliefs and therein lies the potential for conflict. Factions can form within a team, similar to the innovators, early adopters or laggards of the technological life cycle. The laggards bring dissent and resistance that provokes further discord.

Therefore, the leader must keep casting the vision and assessing the workforce in how they are progressing through the adoption curve. It requires judgement to do this and set the right pace for change. The Iceberg Model is a useful tool to help analyse these sorts of stresses.

Here, the ideal that Heifetz is expounding is to:

“Keep the level of distress within tolerable limits for doing adaptive work.”

Heifetz uses a pressure cooker analogy. The leader aims to keep the pressure up without allowing the vessel to blow up.

3. Identify distractions

The next step is to ensure that attention is focused on developing issues and not on less important distractions. Here once again the leader needs to do some diagnosis and identify which issues currently engage attention and differentiate between what is important and what is a distraction. When people find change difficult, they can adopt negative behaviours such as denying the issue, problem misdiagnosis, blaming others, delaying progress, or similar avoidance tactics. As Heifetz says:

“Identify the issues that engage the most attention and counteract avoidance mechanisms such as denial, scapegoating, pretending the problem is technical, or attacking individuals rather than issues.”

These negative behaviours must be identified, understood (once again, the Iceberg Model is useful here) and then challenged, to bring people back to the main issue.

4. Delegate effectively

One effective way of keeping people mission-focused is effective delegation. If you can give people tasks that allow them ownership of the problem – or at least keep them focussed on addressing it – then this will help to minimise distractions.

In my experience, it is productive for a leader to delegate to the point of pain, but only that far. In other words, it should be a little uncomfortable for the leader, who must trust the team member and also challenging for the individual being tasked, as the activity should stretch them. Or as Heifetz puts it:

“Allow people to take responsibility for the problem, but at a rate they can handle.”

In this way, the leader can place responsibility on the whole team while at the same time allowing development opportunities. But once again, the pressure cooker analogy applies. The team is put under stress to deal with the problem, but the leader needs to monitor levels of distress.

5. Encourage challenge

Voices of dissent can cause problems for leaders who are trying to encourage change, but a leader also must protect individuals who challenge them. This can be uncomfortable at times as these people can be a source of frustration to a person in authority, and destabilising for the team. Such people often seem unreasonable, but as George Bernard Shaw observed:

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Organisations need people to challenge them, and all teams need atmospheres of psychological safety where members can raise objections or new ideas. Therefore, the leader has to:

“Protect those who raise hard questions, generate distress, and challenge people to rethink the issues at stake.”

These people, who bring the hard questions, are often leaders in their own right.

The difference between authority and leadership

And here Heifetz draws the distinction between leadership and authority. An authority is a decision maker, someone with a specific leadership role and responsibility within a structure. These formal structures are important for bringing direction, protection, and continuity to a team. But leadership can come from anyone, even outside of these formal structures. Leaders bring influence and provoke change, no matter their role. Leadership should be encouraged throughout an organisation to ensure innovation, creativity, and challenge to the status quo. These individuals, demonstrating this sort of leadership, will often have the freedom to provoke rethinking that authorities lack.

How to develop Adaptive Leadership

So, to become a leader who can effectively navigate change, adopt the five principles of Adaptive Leadership:

1. Diagnose the situation.
2. Manage distress.
3. Identify distractions.
4. Delegate effectively.
5. Encourage challenge.

In today’s rapidly changing environment – in business, politics or life – we must learn to adjust quickly and positively. In the words of the (unofficial) Marine Corps motto, as espoused by Clint Eastwood as Gunny Highway in heartbreak ridge,

“You adapt, you overcome, you improvise!”

When you can do this, and encourage others to do the same, then you are on the way to becoming an Adaptive Leader.

The Skill-Will Matrix is a situational leadership model, made popular by Max Landsberg in his book The Tao of Coaching (2003). The Skill-Will method is easy to remember and apply, and that is why it remains popular with managers. The approach is primarily used to help identify the leadership style best suited to a given team member, but it can also help managers consider the performance management of their employees.

Situational leadership is a type of leadership theory that advocates for leaders to adapt their management approach to fit the circumstances. The premise is that there is no single correct way to lead in every situation as people, challenges and events are in flux. Therefore, good leaders use their judgement and flex their style according to the needs of the situation.

The Skill-Will method is similar to the classic Hersey-Blanchard situational leadership model but differs in the respect that its focuses on the subject (the employee) rather than the leader (or employer).

The 4 quadrants and leadership styles of the skill-will matrix

The skill-will matrix is a simple way to assess the right leadership style according to an individual or team’s level of will (motivation) or skill (competence). It is easily visualised as a two-by-two table with one axis being will (low and high) and the other axis being skill (low and high).

The matrix then proposes the best leadership style for a person, depending on where the subject falls in the four quadrants:

• Low-will/low-skill: Direct
• High-will/low-skill: Guide
• Low-will/high-skill: Excite
• High-will/high-skill: Delegate

You can see this illustrated in the picture below.

Here is a further explanation of each of the four quadrants and the related leadership styles.

Low-will and low-skill: Direct

When someone has low levels of competence or motivation, then they fall into the low-will/low-skill quadrant. The leader needs to Direct team members in this category. In other words, the manager needs to explain tasks carefully and in detail, set clear deadlines and guidelines, and then monitor closely. Setting SMART or SMARTER tasks (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-based, evaluated, and re-evaluated) is essential.

This type of leadership takes the most time and effort of any of the four quadrants and therefore is generally less preferable. A leader who remains in a directive mode of leadership also runs the risk of micro-managing employees if they apply this style in the wrong circumstances.

A classic example of someone in the low-will/low-skill section of the matrix would be someone new to the workplace. These employees need time and training so they can develop their skills. They also need support and encouragement so they can grow in confidence and motivation.

Though this most commonly applies to new workers, low performers generally also fall into this space. Over time a manager could have tried to help the team member progress beyond this quadrant, but it does not always work out. When this is the case, it can be best for the individual to move elsewhere. Sometimes there is a personality clash, so it is worth considering moving the person sideways to another role or team before moving that person out of the organisation completely. These kinds of moves can be hard, but a good leader seeks to find a place where an individual can thrive, even if it is outside their group.

High-will and low-skill: Guide

If someone is enthusiastic but does not necessarily have the right skills or experience, then they fall into the high-will/low-skill category. Here a leader needs to Guide the team member.

When a person is motivated, the role of the manager is to focus that energy and provide the information or instruction needed to complete a task. In this way the leader can be seen as a guide or mentor, supporting the worker by helping them fill in gaps in their knowledge.

Subjects who fall into this quadrant have great growth opportunities and so a manager can use tools such as Kolb’s learning styles and the GROW model to help identify approaches and tasks to develop the individual.

A typical example of someone in this scenario would be a new graduate who might be very intelligent with high energy levels but lacking some experience and specific industry know-how. The trick here is to help the person develop their skills without them losing their motivation.

There is also a potential win-win opportunity here to develop people from two different quadrants. Someone from the high-skill but low-will zone might prove to be a good mentor for those in the high-will/low-skill area. In this way, the experienced person can take on this guiding or mentoring role and hopefully, they will find this motivating, increasing their will while helping the other person to up-skill.

Low-will and high-skill: Excite

A person who lacks enthusiasm but has the necessary know-how falls into the low-will/high-skill bracket. Here the leader needs to Excite the team member by finding ways to increase their will and energy levels.

Long-term team members can sometimes fall into this category. They have all the skills they need to do their job but have lost some of their mojo. If work starts to feel stale or dull, then they lose their enthusiasm. The danger here is that this lack of drive can be infectious and impact other members of the team, particularly new ones who might look up to these experienced team members.

In this situation, a manager must find what is going to motivate that person. What are their drivers? A conversation about personal values could illuminate their passions. Exploring their work-life balance, using a tool such as the Wheel of Life, could also be helpful. This can unearth new goals or areas of growth to help motivate the individual.

As mentioned in the high-will/low-skill section, there is an opportunity to team up with more experienced (but less motivated) employees with energetic (but less competent) team members. This can help both parties move up to the high-will/high-skill zone, while also sharing out some of the management burden of the team leader.

High-will and high-skill: Delegate

If people are both able and willing then they fall into the top right quadrant, that of high-will and high-skill personnel. Leaders can Delegate to these individuals, trusting that they can do the job.

This is the ideal quadrant for managers and team members alike. Being able to delegate effectively empowers the individual and allows the leader to think of longer-term issues, such as business development or the further career development of individuals.

Career development becomes an even more important question for team members in this quadrant as they are the most likely people to be promoted, or who get poached by other teams or organisations. One of the biggest frustrations – but equally the most satisfying aspects of leadership – is seeing one’s best people outgrow the team.

Therefore, it is vital that the leader continues to find new challenges and growth opportunities for the people who fall into this zone. A boss can take on more of a coaching leadership style with a light-touch management approach. A manager needs to create space for creativity and should be comfortable with taking more risks with the individual.

An example of the potential pitfalls of the Skill-Will matrix

I once had an excellent employee who sat in the top, high-will/high-skill quadrant of the matrix. They were experienced, an old hand at the job, but still maintained high energy levels that bolstered the team as a whole. They were a good mentor for new team members, and I often delegated leadership responsibility to them in my absence.

So, when I asked this person to organise a team social, I thought nothing of it, I expected a great result. The problem was that the event was a disaster. The timing, location and expense of the event meant that it would not have got the participation I wanted and therefore I had to intervene and organise the event myself. This was largely a failure on my part.

I was lulled by the Halo Effect, a cognitive bias where I assumed that because this person was good at one thing, then they would be good at another. Here, the person in question was excellent at technical work, and in these circumstances, they were high-will/high-skill. But when I gave them a team-building task this pushed them into a high-will/low-skill situation. Because I did not realise this, I had to take their task away and this damaged their motivation, pushing them into the high-skill/low-will area for a while. It took some coaching from me to get them back on track again.

The point of this example is that don’t assume that people remain static in these quadrants. A change in role, task or situation can easily push people out of their zone – for better or worse – and therefore the leader needs to have good situational awareness and be constantly assessing their people to keep applying the best managerial tactic.

How to use the skill-will matrix

I like the Skill-Will matrix as a leadership approach and management tool as it is so easy to remember and apply. I also like the fact that it was developed from a coaching perspective and forces the leader to think about the way to get the best out of each team member.

If you want to assess someone in your team and modify your leadership style to suit them, then use the Skill-Will matrix. Think of the matrix as a graph and then score the person against each axis to help quantify your thoughts by following these steps:

1. First, think of their skill level. What is their training, competency, or experience for the task at hand? Give them a rating of 1-10.
2. Then think of their will. What are their motivation levels? How energised are they to take on the project? Give this a rating of 1-10
3. Now plot these scores onto the Skill-Will table with 1-5 being low and 6-10 being high on each axis.
4. Pick the appropriate style accordingly.

And remember, we all have our preferred style of leading so it might feel uncomfortable to change that style at first. But, as with fitness, the more you work on your flexibility, the easier that stretching of approaches becomes.