By Jennifer Jordan, Michael Wade & Elizabeth Teracino
In recent years, articles have claimed that old-style command-and-control leadership is “out” and a new way of leading is “in.” Instead of telling people what to do, leaders should ask them open-ended questions. Instead of sticking exactly to plans, they should adjust goals as new information emerges. Instead of working from the gut, a leader should rely on data to make decisions. And so forth.
In surveys and interviews with hundreds of leaders worldwide, we uncovered seven core tensions between the traditional and emerging leadership approaches. Those tensions create significant stress for leaders, as they are often unsure of what competencies, skills and behaviors to exercise in a particular context.
Expert versus Learner: Traditionally, leaders built their careers by developing deep expertise of some kind and demonstrating increasing levels of competence as they moved up the corporate ladder. In the emerging approach, leaders must accept that their specialized expertise is limited (in some cases obsolete) and be open to learning from others.
Constant versus Adapter: The traditional approach values decision-making conviction and consistency; the emerging approach recognizes that in fast-changing environments, decisions often need to be reversed or adapted.
Tactician versus Visionary: The traditional approach to leadership calls for operational clarity and well-defined plans; the emerging approach suggests that leaders require a clear vision for where they want to go, without necessarily needing a concrete road map for how to get there.
Teller versus Listener: Traditional leaders tell others what to do and how to do it; the emerging approach values listening carefully to others before deciding.
Power Holder versus Power Sharer: The emerging approach values empowering others to achieve goals. If this tension is not managed wisely, leaders run the risk of alienating and marginalizing promising talent. Alternatively, they may undermine their own authority by sharing power too broadly.
Intuitionist versus Analyst: The traditional approach suggests that leaders make intuitive decisions. By contrast, the emerging approach says that leaders should base decisions largely on data.
Perfectionist versus Accelerator: The emerging approach calls for leaders to acknowledge that doing something quickly, and failing fast, is often more important than doing it perfectly.
Jennifer Jordan and Michael Wade are professors at IMD. Elizabeth Teracino is a research fellow in the Global Center for Digital Business Transformation at IMD.
Image credits: Skypixel | Dreamstime.com