Three Styles of Leadership Part IV

Today we are looking at the concluding ideas suggested by the three styles of leadership that were given by Brother Neal A. Maxwell as part of an essay entitled "Looking at Leadership" published in . . .A More Excellent Way":  Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints (1967), 15-29.

"Leadership rests to a significant degree on the kind of decision-making that makes effective use of feedback ( communication to another person or group which gives that person information about how he affected others and how he stands in relation to his goals and intentions).  Participative leadership frees those concerned to provide helpful feedback, whereas directive leadership often suffers from the fact that as the leader acquires more prestige and power, his followers may be less and less likely to level with him even though he wishes this were not so.. . .

Both experience and the scriptures suggest a need for a blend of leadership styles -directive and participative,  in which these styles are used in those circumstances most appropriate for them.  We have an unique blend in the church of directive leadership and participative leadership in which everyone grows and everyone moves forward in terms of eternal goals. . . .

There are times, however, when directive leadership is clearly the appropriate kind of leadership.  Brigham Young probably could have spent years working with some lukewarm members of the Church after the martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith, encouraging them to join him and go west.  But the saints finally had to cross the Mississippi River; they had to leave Nauvoo.  The time for action had come.  Under some conditions, leaders must 'cross the river.'

A leader is best apt to be able to blend directive and participative leadership if he is personally and seriously engaged in the divinely intended process of improving his attributes of knowledge, faith, justice, judgment, mercy, truth and love.  He will then be more effective and is more to be trusted with power and influence.  If he loves more perfectly, he will have greater sensitivity to the feelings of group members and know when it is appropriate to emphasize participative leadership.  If he is constantly increasing in his storehouse of knowledge and truth, he will have better insights upon which he can draw when he must act in a directive way.  Group members are much more apt to have confidence in a leader when they see him actively struggling to develop these kinds of attributes.  A leader who is careless about power, insensitive to feelings of members of the group, or who is too sure of his own views without adequate knowledge or information cannot inspire followers for long.  A leader who uses status and authority to cover his sins, to gratify his pride or ambition or to exercise control or dominion will fail organizationally as well as spiritually." ( Church Education System. Principles of Leadership Teacher Manual. Salt Lake City. 2001. pgs. 11-13).

Three styles of Leadership Part III

A Ward Council is an example of participative leadership

Today we are looking at the third of three styles of leadership that were given by Brother Neal A. Maxwell as part of an essay entitled "Looking at Leadership" published in . . .A More Excellent Way":  Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints (1967), 15-29.

"A third kind of leadership is participative leadership in which members of the group share widely in decision making, in which the group is democratically run, in which procedures are adopted and traditions built to insure that this will be the case.  This kind of leadership has these advantages: it often uses the talents, feelings and facts of group members very effectively.  It gives group members a chance to invest in goals and in problem solving so that there is greater group compliance and team work in obtaining these objectives.  It often creates excellent conditions for individual growth.

Participative leadership seeks to call upon the maximum resources of the group members.  When it succeeds, this kind of leadership results in a higher achievement than the individual alone could produce.  Participative leadership assumes that everyone has something to give, which is not  inconsistent with the teaching that 'For all have not every gift given unto them; there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.' (D&C 46:11.). . . .

The disadvantages of participative leadership are that, at times, groups focus too much on feelings and become too immobilized to take needed action.  A group may listen and hear only the signal of  'an uncertain trumpet.' Group problem solving can, when it miscarries, result in the stifling of individual creativity and can result in a great deal of mediocrity. . . .

A critic of participative leadership has asked 'Could the Mona Lisa have been painted by a committee?'  This same critic of the group process says that it often leads to the 'cancellation of each other's inner certitudes.'  Participative leadership also has the disadvantage, at times, of ending up with unconscious and unintended manipulation of group members by a dominant figure while everyone blithely assumes that they share in decision making, which is not the case."  ( Church Education System. Principles of Leadership Teacher Manual. Salt Lake City. 2001. pgs 11-12).

Three styles of Leadership Part II

Jesus Christ is the exemplar of perfection in Directive Leadership.

Today we are looking at the second of three styles of leadership that were given by Brother Neal A. Maxwell as part of an essay entitled "Looking at Leadership" published in . . .A More Excellent Way":  Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints (1967), 15-29.

"A second basic pattern of leadership is directive leadership, in which the leader seeks to maintain his greater "psychological size" in relation to the members of the group.  He is the dominant figure and though he may be very sincere and dedicated, he clearly calls the shots and makes the most crucial decisions.

This kind of leadership has these kind of advantages: it often can get results with considerable speed.  It gives followers a sense of action and accomplishment.  It gives them a certain sense of security, especially with a leader who is a rallying point around which they can flock.  It avoids some limitations of group inadequacies, since the leader can call on group members for help where it is appropriate but need not be bound by sharing all decision-making with them.

We have all seen examples of this kind of leadership in a crisis.  It is not a popular form of leadership in some quarters today, but we must be reminded that it has real advantages. . .

Directive leadership also has the potential disadvantage that the leader is often not aware of all the facts and feelings present among the followers. The talents of the followers and members of the group cannot be as fully developed unless they share more extensively in decision-making and implementation.  This kind of leadership can miscarry even with a sincere, dedicated directive leader because he does not strive to mobilize the full resources of his group, nor is he himself always sufficiently omniscient to avoid error.

Directive leadership with all the advantages it possesses can encourage an attitude in some leaders toward followers when they are trying feverishly to impart instructions and information to them.  It is almost as if these leaders in these situations wanted to dispense quickly whatever it was they had to say--instructional or informational-- and be done with it!  There are situations in which we can honestly shift spiritual responsibility by merely telling others, but this should not become  a total leadership style. . .

Very often the talented directive person becomes very impatient with clumsiness and mediocrity in other people.  The talented person may also bridle under the supervision of someone whom he believes to be inferior to himself." ( Church Education System. Principles of Leadership Teacher Manual. Salt Lake City. 2001. pgs 10-11).

Three styles of Leadership Part I

Elder Neal A. Maxwell

In an essay entitled "Looking at Leadership" in ". . .A More Excellent way": Essays on Leadership for Latter-day Saints (1967) pgs 15-29,  Brother Neal A. Maxwell who later served in the Quorum of the Twelve, taught about three different styles of leadership.  Today we will focus on the first of the three methods he describes.

"There appear to be three basic leadership styles, each with its own limitations, advantages, variations, and spin-offs.  There is, first of all, manipulative leadership, ranging in its more sinister form from the Machiavellian kind on through to the kind of modest manipulation each of us at times may consciously or unconsciously practice on those around us.

Manipulative leadership has certain advantages:  it can at times give short-term results, solve a problem, or pass a crisis by manipulating people, feelings, and causes.  It can at times give the followers a sense of action and accomplishment, yet does not require the leader to take into account the feelings and ideas of the members of his group since he is free to manipulate them, to bypass them, or to use their naivete'.

The disadvantages of this form of leadership are:  it can be, and usually is, crushingly condescending:  it seeks to carry our the wishes of the leader and to meet his needs, not necessarily the needs of the group.  It can miscarry badly with an evil leader of end in chaos with a leader who is not sophisticated in his manipulation, and therefore, who is more apt to be exposed early.  It uses or ignores people and their feelings without aiming at their growth."(Church Education System , Principles of Leadership Teacher Manual, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City. 2001 pgs. 9-10)