I was reading an article on leadership by galenkp and it had me reflecting on my own role in the organisation I work for. As stated in previous posts, I Supervise a department of a few people and have an immediate line supervisor that I report to. I was just thinking how very different our leadership styles are and who's is actually more effective.
I've always used the carrot approach to leadership for as long as I can remember. Even when I previously had Much smaller leadership roles this was the tactic that I employed. It is one strategy that has made me liked by my colleagues/subordinates, but sometimes I like to reflect on just how effective such a strategy is. After all, being liked is not the essence of leadership, and there are a lot of nice people who have been shown the way out of their leadership roles.
Leadership is all about effectiveness. My immediate supervisor isn't a very nice person, but I admit that he is very effective in driving the message and galvanising people to action. That to me is the whole essence of being in a leadership role. Without results there really is no need for a leader. This isn't lost on me, as I sometimes feel overwhelmed by some of the responses I get from my team. Many are rather comfortable doing the bare minimums unless they are pressured, rather than inspired to do so.
Of course I don't think my approach will change anytime soon, but perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on those who have less than ideal leadership strategies. Many people simply go with what works for them. One thing we quickly realise is how difficult humans are to manage. The essence of leadership is all about prompting action and delivering results, and it is important to remember that.